...except it doesn't...unless you view it solely from a sexist perspective.
Either we are worthy (or unworthy) as an individual human being or we instead can only defined by our group identity. The latter is the Marxist way of looking at it BTW.
TITLE IX PODCAST: Episode 4
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
...except it doesn't...unless you view it solely from a sexist perspective.
Either we are worthy (or unworthy) as an individual human being or we instead can only defined by our group identity. The latter is the Marxist way of looking at it BTW.
It's a great podcast that brings diversity to the CF lineup in many ways. Obviously bringing in a female perspective, but also a fan's perspective. CF puts out a lot of quality podcast content, but there wasn't much room to add to the line-up from people who cover the Cyclones as a FT job. Sports journalist have rational takes, sometimes it's good to get an irrational take from a fan from time to time.
Come on. They gave specific examples of it happening and are talking about it to help people understand that it happens them and other women. We're not talking about if someone is "known to be dumb". At that point the talker already knows they might need to explain more. In that situation it is KNOWN to the person explaining. The point is that men often assume a level of intelligence about sports(or other topics), or lack there of, if they're talking to a woman. They even brought up the point that in general people could ask the person they're talking to if they have detailed knowledge of the topic before diving in like they know nothing. Probably a good tactic to try all around.
Edited to clarify.
L
LincolnWay187
Guest
In a business environment there are so many siloed areas of expertise and domain knowledge. Nobody knows everything. Hell even executives...you often need to simplify things so they can easily understand because they're dealing with issues from all areas of the company.
I'll reiterate, I'm sure there are bad and clear instances depending on the tone of the people speaking..but making "mansplaining" a thing is going to just discourage guys from talking to women they intended to help understand the business
I'll reiterate, I'm sure there are bad and clear instances depending on the tone of the people speaking..but making "mansplaining" a thing is going to just discourage guys from talking to women they intended to help understand the business
And mansplaining is not explaining something to someone. It’s explaining something to a woman in a way that implies that there is no possible way that a woman could understand it.
your response is an example.
L
LincolnWay187
Guest
Jfc. Ok good luck. I think you're stressing tone? Tone is subjective to people and theres a risk there
Odd? What surprises you that CF found something about which to nit-pik?
The Title IX podcast has delivered as promised and is a nice addition to the CF collection.
Seems to me LincolnWay was explaining his/her stance that from my perspective was directed toward a faceless entity named jsb. I don't know if LincolnWay knows whether you are male or female, but I certainly don't. I try to thoroughly explain what I am thinking or doing to everyone not knowing what their background is. I don't think it is being derogatory, just thorough. I however don't demean or try to make whoever I am explaining something to feel inferior.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but your whole post was (ugh, much as I hate the term) a "mansplain." You are saying that as a male you know that a female's concerns are invalid because you know better than she does. Then, you cited an obscure example that really isn't relevant - sure in the case of a more experienced male employee mentoring a less experienced female coworker it's appropriate for that person to be explaining and teaching a female so long as she wants to be mentored. That's one very narrow case and doesn't represent the vast majority of male/female interactions. You are also saying that you know better about how females feel (or should feel) about their reactions with males better than they do.
The whole point is that while I think the term is annoying and can be misapplied, the situation is real. In normal discussions it's accurate 99% of the time it's claimed. They provided several good examples in the podcast of what it is and why it's infuriating to women. The right thing to do is acknowledge real problems, acknowledge and use real solutions to those problems, and ignore the politics.
The only time that "mansplaining" is misused at a high rate is when talking about gender relations politics. In that context, yes it is used as a way to shut down debate and discussion. That's not what was going on in this podcast, and it doesn't represent the real problem.
L
LincolnWay187
Guest
Lol Illw do jsb did to me. You have no idea if i am a man or woman, are you womansplaining this to me?
Unless someone is cartoonishly exaggerating, i dont think you can assume someone is
"mansplaining" to use your term. Why does this even have to be male vs female. A condescending ******* is a condescending *******. Like no man hating woman ever talked down to someone either? Try to imagine yourself on the other side .. being accused of this when you were simply helping someone. Hate the term, and i would argue the office environment is when we would be most likely to be accused/victim of this since we spend so much time in an office.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not a woman, so I'm definitely not "womansplaining." I don't like the term either, I hate it because it's a loaded term. It feels like anyone who says it is accusing someone of a crime. That said, it still describes a real thing that happens often in our society.
The whole problem, which I'm trying to get across to you, is that it doesn't matter if you think you are helping someone. The "mansplaining" issue is not about intent, it's about subconscious biases. You may have the absolute best intentions in mind and you can still condescend to someone. It's no less offensive to the person on the receiving end if you genuinely thought a person didn't know something and wanted to help them than if you were just an arrogant jerk. The simple act of assuming a person didn't know something or that you knew better than them without even hearing their opinion is insulting to that person. You seem like a person who does care about doing the right thing and that is why I am trying to point this out to you.
I also would not want to be accused of doing it, which is why I try to be careful of how I interact with other people. I know a lot of random things and like to explain things to other people (the polite way of saying I can be a know-it-all sometimes). So this is something that hits close to home for me. There is nothing that I love more than to be able to explain to people everything I know about something. That's gotten me in trouble in the past and still does sometimes today. I personally have tried to start the habit of asking people how much they know about a topic before I start going off on an in depth explanation.
It's called what it is because it's most often done by men to women. That's why I say stick to what is real and ignore the politics. I hate the term, I hate the culture of trying to call people out, but I can't ignore that it is a real issue. Anyway, I'm done discussing this issue, but I just ask that you think about what the actual problem is, not the stupid term for it and not the politics surrounding it. Ask a woman in your life if they've had the experience of men assuming they don't know certain basic things and just think about it.
I'd ask comments on this post, to stay away debating the political issue that is discussed here and instead just focus on the use of the oft-misused label of "mansplaining" here. This is why the term has become fingernails on a chalkboard for many.
This is very timely as it just occurred on The View end of last week when Rand Paul was the guest.
This is disheartening and I'd suggest dangerous. Ana Navarro from The View chose instead of intellectually defending a point Paul was making on Socialism (that she didn't agree with) , she pulled the mansplaining card.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rro-cuts-off-rand-paul-criticism-of-socialism
(note: the source I linked to is conservative, but the video is there so you can watch it and draw your own conclusion).
This is very timely as it just occurred on The View end of last week when Rand Paul was the guest.
This is disheartening and I'd suggest dangerous. Ana Navarro from The View chose instead of intellectually defending a point Paul was making on Socialism (that she didn't agree with) , she pulled the mansplaining card.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rro-cuts-off-rand-paul-criticism-of-socialism
(note: the source I linked to is conservative, but the video is there so you can watch it and draw your own conclusion).
Last edited:
Threw out what I thought was obviously a joke line among some engineers years ago. "We got water running up hill today, boys." Was a line I heard the old farmers use in the spring when everything was melting and water was everywhere. Little boy me always thought it was funny. So, this humor challenged hydraulic engineer actually started to explain to me (Mr. Non-engineer) how water does not flow up hill. I am glancing around and seeing the other guys rolling their eyes and acknowledging that, yeah, he's serious.
Last edited:
This is the key. They are very talented and do a fabulous job. I wish them every success and will be listening.
Threw out what I thought was obviously a joke line among some engineers years ago. "We got water running up hill today, boys." Was a line I heard the old farmers use in the spring when everything was melting and water was everywhere. Little boy me always thought it was funny. So, this humor challenged hydraulic engineer actually started to explain to me (Mr. Non-engineer) how water does not flow up hill. I am glancing around and seeing the other guys rolling their eyes and acknowledging that, yeah, he's serious.
too bad u didnt know about hydaulic ram pumps back then