Rude to ignore a direct question in email? (Small update - post #7, #14, #16)

[artk2002]

It's being  used in the correct context here.  This is a man who believes that his religion gives him the right to lecture women and people younger than him and he believes that he is in the right.  This was not a term directed at ALL men, but to this one man in particular.  Had you said I was grumpy because I was PMSy and you knew it, and I actually was grumpy because I was PMSy (cramps tend to do that to a person), it doesn't make it sexist, it makes it fact.

I'm sorry, but it's never the correct context. Ever.

[onyonryngs]

It's being  used in the correct context here.  This is a man who believes that his religion gives him the right to lecture women and people younger than him and he believes that he is in the right.  This was not a term directed at ALL men, but to this one man in particular.  Had you said I was grumpy because I was PMSy and you knew it, and I actually was grumpy because I was PMSy (cramps tend to do that to a person), it doesn't make it sexist, it makes it fact.

I'm sorry, but it's never the correct context. Ever.

It's being  used in the correct context here.  This is a man who believes that his religion gives him the right to lecture women and people younger than him and he believes that he is in the right.  This was not a term directed at ALL men, but to this one man in particular.  Had you said I was grumpy because I was PMSy and you knew it, and I actually was grumpy because I was PMSy (cramps tend to do that to a person), it doesn't make it sexist, it makes it fact.

I'm sorry, but it's never the correct context. Ever.

I beg to differ, but this quote explains it much better than I can.  "The same is true for mansplaining.   Despite the fears of many fellas like my student, mansplaining isn't a term for any time a guy tries to explain himself.   Mansplaining is about a very specific instance of "privilege and ignorance… when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate 'facts' about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does."  http://jezebel.com/5943051/five-tips-for-the-mansplainers-in-your-life

[artk2002]

If you don't like being condescended to, then please do me the courtesy of not being condescending to me. I find the use of the term "mansplaining," no matter how you justify it, to be condescending.

I beg to differ, but this quote explains it much better than I can.  "The same is true for mansplaining.   Despite the fears of many fellas like my student, mansplaining isn't a term for any time a guy tries to explain himself.   Mansplaining is about a very specific instance of "privilege and ignorance… when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate 'facts' about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does."  http://jezebel.com/5943051/five-tips-for-the-mansplainers-in-your-life

The problem is that it may start out as described in Jezebel, but like many (most) short-hand terms it becomes more generalized. I've seen it used many, many times to dismiss someone simply because it was a male making the argument. It may not have been meant that way originally, but you can't control the usage.

Shorthand terms are very, very dangerous because their meanings can morph. Do "liberal" and "conservative" have much meaning beyond "the other people I don't agree with" these days? If you want to say that someone is saying something stupid, address what they are saying, but don't dismiss it with a shorthand term. You can call me an idiot (or a "mansplainer") but if you want me to take you seriously, you have to say why I'm an idiot.

[onyonryngs]

Isn't it pretty clear in the post why the guy is being described as a mainsplainer though?  It was in no way used as a generalized term.  It was a comment about one man and how he is presenting himself.  I don't think it's condescending to link an article or a quote to explain why I think the term can be used in the correct context and still be appropriate.

[nuit93]

Um, can we please drop the argument about mansplaining before the mods shut this post down?

[blueberry.muffin]

*snip*

Do "liberal" and "conservative" have much meaning beyond "the other people I don't agree with" these days?

I'm not sure what political world you live in, but quite a few of my friends and acquaintances of every political leaning imaginable use exactly those terms. It's very helpful to know who leans to which side when discussing politics. I have absolutely no problem with someone calling me a liberal/conservative (I've been called both, though I do lean strongly in one direction) and I have yet to find someone who is offended when I use those terms.

Honestly, in your case, I would consider not taking things so personally.

[Aeris]

<snip>
His condescension does come from male privilege, but it still doesn't make "mansplaining" an acceptable term.

Mansplaining *means* 'condescension that stems directly from male privilege'. If that is what is happening, and mansplaining is the accurate term for it, I fail to see the problem.

It allows someone to dismiss someone's arguments based on their gender and not the content of their arguments. I don't dismiss your statements based on your gender, please do me (and other males) the same courtesy, even if our statements are totally moronic. Dismiss them because they're moronic.

No, it allows someone to dismiss their arguments because they are condescension that stems directly from male privilege. It does not dismiss the arguments because they come from a male. Not all males speak with condescension that stems directly from male privilege.

To be crystal clear, dismissing 'mansplaining' IS dismissing statements for being moronic, not dismissing them for coming from a man. It's a particular subset of moronic.

I'm not objecting to your characterization of his statements, I'm objecting to your using a sexist term to dismiss him. Again, you wouldn't want your statements characterized with "that's her PMS talking," so why is acceptable to say, in effect, "that's his Y chromosome talking"? It's very hard to listen to someone when they're doing something while complaining that another person is doing it. If you want to call him sexist (and I would strongly agree with you), don't use a sexist term to do so. It does nothing to advance the discussion.

I don't know why you think these are equivalent. "That's her PMS talking" is actually bypassing the argument. Characterizing an **argument** as 'mansplaining' is not at all bypassing the argument, it is addressing the content of the argument head on.

There's a massive difference between saying 'ignore him, he's a man' and 'ignore him, his argument sounds like condescension stemming directly from male privilege'. The second one is not an inherently sexist statement, by any stretch. And it means the exact same thing as 'ignore him, he's mansplaining'.