It's offensive because it assumes I identify as a man - and that assumption, to me, is explicitly implied in the term itself.
I refuse to see the term as a neutral-term applied equally to both genders for three reasons. One being the term itself is gender-loaded (includes "man" in it) and the next being that the majority of the users of the term are femininsts using it to discount any opinions or explanations held by a man; regardless of validity. Lastly, even the wiki article goes to great lengths to emphasize "usually a man" and "usually towards a woman".
Though I'm probably mansplaining right now aren't I? You probably know more about the term than I do and here I am explaining to you why it's a sexist term!
Their usage also missed that the very problem of being misgendered is something I'm accustomed to and I'm aware of the reasons behind why it happens. It only sees that I tried to "mansplain away" why she was misgendered as the male in the picture rather than pitching in my $0.02 as to why the mistake was a genuine mistake and not explicitly or implicitly sexist. In mrrgn's defense, she provided a better example of the "coded sexism"/implicit sexism in a reply to me. It's also a much better example as it is implicit sexism rather than a "genuine mistake" because it's making an assumption based on gender.
>Other examples: going to conferences and being asked if I was covering it for a blog.
The usage against me makes an assumption that I am not frequently misgendered and know less about being misgendered than mrrgn does (since the term "mansplaining" itself assumes the lack of knowledge of the one "mansplaining" in regards to the person they are "mansplaining" towards"). I'd wager I'm misgendered far more frequently and thus this assumption is wrong and I can't possibly be mansplaining by its own definition.
The largest problem, in my biased opinion, is it misuses a negatively-loaded term against a rather lengthy reply. People may glance at their reply and disregard my post without actually reading the content due to the length of my post. I find that unfair to me and unhealthy towards discussion (and discussion is the point of HN comments...right?)
> It only sees that I tried to "mansplain away" why she was misgendered as the male in the picture rather than pitching in my $0.02 as to why the mistake was a genuine mistake and not explicitly or implicitly sexist.
I read your comment. I understood all this. I imagine the person you were replying to also considered this. Who wouldn't?
>I read your comment. I understood all this. I imagine the person you were replying to also considered this. Who wouldn't?
They used something that wasn't sexism as an example of sexism. So I imagine they hadn't considered it at the time.
Regardless, you've made it clear you do not care for discussion (at least for this topic) so there is no point in us continuing this conversation. You've obviously made up your mind on the subject.
A reaction or reflex can be sexist (or racist or classist) even if the person having that reaction is filled with all the best intentions and happy thoughts in the world. It doesn't mean the person with that reflex is a bad or terrible person.
I see myself with sexist reflexes all the time, e.g., using a certain pronoun without thinking even when all I know is the person's job title. I'm certainly not thinking "Oh, they're a Director of Engineering? They _must_ be a man." I'm not thinking anything at all, actually — it's a reflex that's been baked into me by a few decades of acculturation.
That reflex: sexist.
When someone talks about an engineer you've never met, how often do you see a non-Asian person of color in your mind's eye? The honest answer for me is "Almost never, unless I'm being very deliberate about it."
Your example of title is different from the given example of mistaking who in a picture they are talking to. You're arguing against something I'm not defending or mentioning. I'm even going out of my way to exclude such examples of implicit sexism by admitting it exists but the specific example given wasn't a good example of it since it was likely an honest mistake. To bring up another example that I excluded and made no mention of is being intellectually dishonest.
A picture with a male in it could easily be mistaken for being male when you know nothing else about the person other than a picture and their username if the username is interpreted to be masculine or their manner of speech is interpreted to be masculine. Since names and speech are gendered that's a very common mistake to make online and it swings both ways. Feminine-sounding guys are assumed to be girls and masculine-sounding girls are assumed to be guys. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck most people are going to think it's a duck. If it isn't a duck they weren't being duckist. They are simply wrong.
If someone's name was "Jesse" or "Taylor" and their job title was "Hooter's Girl" would it be sexist to assume the person is female? I'm of the opinion it wouldn't be sexist at all, given the information provided. It could still be wrong, but being wrong is not being sexist.
Rhetorical question, by the way, I know you think it is still sexist.
They are still different examples and have very different implications in them.
I'm complaining about Powerade. You're complaining about Gatorade. Gatorade and Powerade might be similar in some aspects and some people may even confuse the two - but Gatorade is not Powerade.
> I refuse to see the term as a neutral-term applied equally to both genders for three reasons. One being the term itself is gender-loaded (includes "man" in it) [...]
I agree here. In my mind there is no question that the 'mansplainer' is a man and the 'mansplainee' is almost certainly a woman.
I read the first bit of the Wikipedia article, seems like one of those cases where Wikipedia is going out of its way to be 'neutral' on a one sided subject.
I refuse to see the term as a neutral-term applied equally to both genders for three reasons. One being the term itself is gender-loaded (includes "man" in it) and the next being that the majority of the users of the term are femininsts using it to discount any opinions or explanations held by a man; regardless of validity. Lastly, even the wiki article goes to great lengths to emphasize "usually a man" and "usually towards a woman".
Though I'm probably mansplaining right now aren't I? You probably know more about the term than I do and here I am explaining to you why it's a sexist term!
Their usage also missed that the very problem of being misgendered is something I'm accustomed to and I'm aware of the reasons behind why it happens. It only sees that I tried to "mansplain away" why she was misgendered as the male in the picture rather than pitching in my $0.02 as to why the mistake was a genuine mistake and not explicitly or implicitly sexist. In mrrgn's defense, she provided a better example of the "coded sexism"/implicit sexism in a reply to me. It's also a much better example as it is implicit sexism rather than a "genuine mistake" because it's making an assumption based on gender.
>Other examples: going to conferences and being asked if I was covering it for a blog.
The usage against me makes an assumption that I am not frequently misgendered and know less about being misgendered than mrrgn does (since the term "mansplaining" itself assumes the lack of knowledge of the one "mansplaining" in regards to the person they are "mansplaining" towards"). I'd wager I'm misgendered far more frequently and thus this assumption is wrong and I can't possibly be mansplaining by its own definition.
The largest problem, in my biased opinion, is it misuses a negatively-loaded term against a rather lengthy reply. People may glance at their reply and disregard my post without actually reading the content due to the length of my post. I find that unfair to me and unhealthy towards discussion (and discussion is the point of HN comments...right?)