andrewducker | Delicious LiveJournal Links for 2-1-2010

You're viewing

andrewducker's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

andrewducker

Then don't do it. You're not being forced to, you know. Assume my good faith, and proceed from that.

I assumed that you meant exactly what you said, and disagreed with it on that basis. I'm not going to go around assuming you mean things that are different to what you say, or constantly asking you to clarify.

From:

meihua.livejournal.com

You called my statement "categorically wrong". So either:

1. I have very surprising information which you don't

2. There has been a misunderstanding

3. I am fundamentally deluded on the subject

Given that (1) and (2) are the likely options, "asking me to clarify" is exactly what you should do.

Alternatively, if you think I am fundamentally deluded, say so. Don't mansplain at me.

From:

andrewducker

Mansplain???

And I thought you were deluded - I directly contradicted you. I thought you were making that claim that the truth was A, and was saying that it was not A, but B. But I was perfectly willing for you to come back and show me that actually it was A, and B was based on incorrect information. I don't see a problem with this - why do you believe there is one?

If I said "There is no sexual oppression any more!" I'd expect you to say "Yes there is! It's everywhere!" and, if feeling charitable, follow up with a few links to sites which showed the scale of the problem. I wouldn't expect you to say "Would you like to clarify why you think there's no sexual oppression?"

Edit: I could be wrong here of course - would you come back with the request for clarification?

Edited Date: 2010-02-01 02:52 pm (UTC)

From:

meihua.livejournal.com

Mainsplaining is a way to call someone deluded / an idiot without coming out and saying, "You're deluded / an idiot". It's great because it has all the effect of calling someone deluded / an idiot without the accountability. In fact, it makes the mansplainer look quite reasonable!

What you do is take the deluded idiot by the hand and walk them through, in a patronising manner, exactly why they are wrong. What you don't do at any point is check your understanding that they're wrong; you just present them with detailed evidence of their wrongness (often by pointing out very obvious "mistakes").

As a reminder, these was your post:

What percentage of people that you encounter grope you? 75%? 50%? 25%? 5%? 1%? Less than that?

Because if a behaviour isn't being shown by more than 25% of the people you're bumping into then it doesn't sound like normal behaviour to me.

That is patronising as hell. I'm ok with numbers, you know, as are quite a lot of us. I'm capable of putting something on a percentage scale without you suggesting helpful breakpoints. I also don't need it explaining that the definition of "normal" and "less than 25%" are not usually compatible. In common I would think with the majority of your readers, I know what a bell curve looks like.

From:

andrewducker

Aaah. Gotcha. And yup, that wasn't a helpful way to put it, and I apologise.

I don't like the word though - intrinsically associating a method of arguing with one chunk of gender seems ridiculous and offensive to me. (Although I can well believe that it's more common in men, as it looks like a method of maintaining hierarchy)

From:

meihua.livejournal.com

> Aaah. Gotcha. And yup, that wasn't a helpful way to put it, and I apologise.

Accepted! :)

I don't like the word though - intrinsically associating a method of arguing with one chunk of gender seems ridiculous and offensive to me. (Although I can well believe that it's more common in men, as it looks like a method of maintaining hierarchy)

While I acknowledge that you don't like it, it is very heavily associated with one chunk of gender. Rather than getting into detail here, it's probably best if you follow up those feelings by reading the links I posted, at which many commenters have expressed the same feelings.

From:

andrewducker

Yes, those sites have a a sample which consists mostly of women, who have thus encountered mostly men treating them that way.

But that doesn't help in a wider arena, where you're still polarising people by explicitly including them in a pejorative term.

From:

meihua.livejournal.com

> Yes, those sites have a a sample which consists mostly of women, who have thus encountered mostly men treating them that way.

If you want to have that discussion, please go to those sites to have it. I don't want to have it here.