Mansplaining?Really?

[Christianbookworm]

So, are some women upset that some men can't be polite and stop talking so someone else can speak without interrupting? Isn't there a general word for people(men and women) who talk so much that no one else can get a word in edgewise?

[Zymologist]

Maybe I just run in different circles, but I can't think of any times I've seen "mansplaining," as described in this thread. I certainly don't do it, and neither does anybody I know, that I can think of.

[Meh Gerbil]

Here is the problem for the people who swallow this bilge:

1: If a woman is equal to a man then she should be able to hold her own in a conversation and do so without special considerations.
2: If a woman is not equal to a man and requires special consideration then I'd be justified in not hiring her for a job that requires conversation.

You have to pick one of those.
Good luck, libtards.

[rogue06]

Here is the problem for the people who swallow this bilge:

1: If a woman is equal to a man then she should be able to hold her own in a conversation and do so without special considerations.
2: If a woman is not equal to a man and requires special consideration then I'd be justified in not hiring her for a job that requires conversation.

You have to pick one of those.
Good luck, libtards.

The issue doesn't only arise in the business world but home life as well. Women complain about "mansplaining" when their husband or boyfriend explains something to them.

In spite of what the women might think, this might not have anything to do with being condescending. A lot of men give long, detailed explanations to lessen chances of mistakes being made as a result of what they said or to just prevent simple misunderstandings about what they're saying.

A whole lot of folks in the business world have read Sun Tzu's ancient text on The Art of War in the last couple of decades and as it says:

If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But, if orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.

This leads to detailed explanations if they already require a long or somewhat complicated one.

And as I said, men tend to normally do this to other men as well so it isn't some unique behavior directed toward women.

[Leonhard]

I'm not dismissing that it happens but merely pointing out the fact that men do the exact same thing to other men. That it is not something directed uniquely toward women. And yet there is no whinny term for it when men do it to other men.

And I was saying that it happens disproportionately with women, hence a problem.

[Leonhard]

Maybe I just run in different circles, but I can't think of any times I've seen "mansplaining," as described in this thread. I certainly don't do it, and neither does anybody I know, that I can think of.

I have, a table of four guys and one of the girls from the choir who is an expert on architecture and history of the liturgy. She tried to get into the conversation, but was always drowned out by four other guys who had never studied the subject. It was interesting seeing them just pontificate on these matter.

I think that illustrated a problem. They should learn to listen to her, she should feel confident in being able to talk.

[Leonhard]

1: If a woman is equal to a man then she should be able to hold her own in a conversation and do so without special considerations.
2: If a woman is not equal to a man and requires special consideration then I'd be justified in not hiring her for a job that requires conversation.

It's a false dichotomy. The situation is that often there are women who are more qualified than the men around them, but the men don't consider her to be so and she's not allowed time at the table.

[Leonhard]

Accusing someone of mansplaining is not cordial or polite. It is offensive language. Where is my safe space?

I've never seen 'mansplaining' being raised in a discussion. It's more a thing talked about as a problem about discussions. The women I've seen at the end of a mansplaining were more than qualified to answer, but weren't allowed and seemed to expect not being able to talk. They waited for the guys to finish, perhaps opining a little. And I thought that was tragic as they had a lot to offer in the conversation.

It's not like there's an angry toad of a woman shouting "Quit mansplaining" That's not what I'm referring to.

[Leonhard]

Can a woman not interrupt a man and insist he stop explaining something she already understands?

Do you agree that if a women piped up saying something like "I have studied that for five years, and you two have been talking none stop for twenty minutes, mind listening to me for a bit" The guys should actually go "Oh, whoops sorry, we got a bit carried away."

Can a woman not get attention at a meeting and hold the floor?

Are you talking about in general or in specifics. Can, could mean some women manage to, usually by being highly aggressive (in which case apparently they get labelled bitches). A problem can exists, even with some people managing to beat the odds and expectations.

Can a woman not lead a conversation without everyone else intentionally stepping aside?

In my experience this is precisely what is difficult for some of them, because guys will cut in mid-sentence on them, and talk without a hint of the usual attention given to the other.

What is different about a woman that she cannot compete in a conversation like a man?

I don't think the problem is with the woman.

So I'm supposed to sit in a meeting where a heated discussion about some topic of import is occurring and at some point hold up my hand and ask everyone to be quiet so we can give the wilting flower in the back of the room a moment to make her case heard?

Wilted flower?

All the women I know have no problem making their voices heard.
Maybe some of these people need to hang out with a better class of woman.

I know a viking lady, with tatooed arms, a former jouster (until she cracked her pelvis in a riding accident), chain smoking, coffee drinking, eighty to a hundred hours work week, won't take no for an answer business woman. She can hold the ground because once she gets it, you rarely get it back.

She's a romaphile, she loves history, has started I don't how many art and cultural preservation projects. Friends with one of the royals, Prince Henrik, who co-chaired one of those groups. Start on those subjects, and get ready to sit in on a monologue. You won't be allowed much to say.

Yes. Also she's my current boss.

And she'd agree with me in this situation, and make some points about some idiotic men she's dealt with in her time.

However I think also the choir girl who know more about church architecture than the others in my group put together should be able to pipe in more than two minutes out of two hours in a pub meeting. Shouldn't have her opening sentences cut down by a guy who had just finished his pint. Bloke's apologizing to eachother for breaking off something they said, but never to her.

[Meh Gerbil]

It's a false dichotomy. The situation is that often there are women who are more qualified than the men around them, but the men don't consider her to be so and she's not allowed time at the table.

No, it isn't a false dichotomy.
Those are the only two logical choices.

If the woman is just as qualified it is her job to make those qualifications evident.
If she is incapable of making her qualifications evident then she isn't qualified for the job.

"I'm sorry you lost the case but your lawyer, a female, didn't object to some crucial evidence presented by the prosecution because she's shy and she was waiting for the judge to ask her for objections"

Blaming all of the other participants in a meeting for not catering to someone who is shy is ridiculous.
If the woman cannot be assertive enough to do the job then she isn't, by definition, qualified.
I'm sorry, but most jobs require more than the degree you earned in the safe environment of University.

[Leonhard]

No, it isn't a false dichotomy.
Those are the only two logical choices.

If the woman is just as qualified it is her job to make those qualifications evident.
If she is incapable of making her qualifications evident then she isn't qualified for the job.

"I'm sorry you lost the case but your lawyer, a female, didn't object to some crucial evidence presented by the prosecution because she's shy and she was waiting for the judge to ask her for objections"

Blaming all of the other participants in a meeting for not catering to someone who is shy is ridiculous.
If the woman cannot be assertive enough to do the job then she isn't, by definition, qualified.
I'm sorry, but most jobs require more than the degree you earned in the safe environment of University.

Now I think you're moving into strawman territory as mansplaining has nothing to do with formal procedures like that. It's not about court sessions.

I'm not aware of any feminists discussing 'mansplaining' in those situations at all.

[Meh Gerbil]

Do you agree that if a women piped up saying something like "I have studied that for five years, and you two have been talking none stop for twenty minutes, mind listening to me for a bit" The guys should actually go "Oh, whoops sorry, we got a bit carried away."

If I were a guy I'd tell her I'm not interested in her life story or her resume and ask her to get to the stupid point.

Are you talking about in general or in specifics. Can, could mean some women manage to, usually by being highly aggressive (in which case apparently they get labelled bitches). A problem can exists, even with some people managing to beat the odds and expectations.

If you cannot handle being called a name then get a job were you don't have to get aggressive.
What is going on in our Universities where someone thinks they can be involved in making big decisions and not be called names?
I don't think name calling is good but I think the expectation that it won't happen is ridiculous.

In my experience this is precisely what is difficult for some of them, because guys will cut in mid-sentence on them, and talk without a hint of the usual attention given to the other.

So cut them off right back again.
Business isn't all about being polite and it isn't all about feelings.

Would you hire an attorney that was incapable of navigating a contentious conversation?
Would you hire an attorney that was entirely dependent upon others being polite?

I don't think the problem is with the woman.

Because you are a sexist and you seek to place blame based upon gender.
The fact is there are plenty of aggressive tough women who have no problem navigating a man's world.
The fact is there are plenty of shy men who don't do jobs where aggression is required because they cannot handle it.

When you take off your sexist blinders you see that business and law and such can be aggressive.
Some can handle it while others cannot.

When my daughter complained about men in her physics classes not listening to her I told her to go bite their heads off.
Her instructor started placing her with difficult groups of men because she could handle herself.
Women can do it; I hate your brand of sexism that claims they cannot.

Wilted flower?

Your sexist view of women that holds that they're incapable of winning in a conversation unless men allow for it.

And she'd agree with me in this situation, and make some points about some idiotic men she's dealt with in her time.

And she'd be wrong.... because she's a sexist.
Look, men often don't listen to other men - chances are the same jerk that is giving a man the run around is doing the same to women.

People get treated poorly for all sorts of reasons: ugly, attractive, too short, too tall, wrong school, etc.
Maybe the woman is getting treated poorly for those reasons - but no, thanks to the sexists in our midst is must only ever be a gender problem.

However I think also the choir girl who know more about church architecture than the others in my group put together should be able to pipe in more than two minutes out of two hours in a pub meeting. Shouldn't have her opening sentences cut down by a guy who had just finished his pint. Bloke's apologizing to eachother for breaking off something they said, but never to her.

There is more to social discourse than knowledge.

You keep setting up this imaginary scenario where some brilliant but shy genius isn't getting air time because they're too shy.
That happens to men all of the time.
It isn't a sexist thing unless you're a sexist who cannot help but attribute every injustice to gender.

[Meh Gerbil]

Now I think you're moving into strawman territory as mansplaining has nothing to do with formal procedures like that. It's not about court sessions.

I'm not aware of any feminists discussing 'mansplaining' in those situations at all.

At any job where conversation is required an employee who is too shy to contribute (per job requirements) is effectively unqualified for the job.

[rogue06]

No, it isn't a false dichotomy.
Those are the only two logical choices.

If the woman is just as qualified it is her job to make those qualifications evident.
If she is incapable of making her qualifications evident then she isn't qualified for the job.

"I'm sorry you lost the case but your lawyer, a female, didn't object to some crucial evidence presented by the prosecution because she's shy and she was waiting for the judge to ask her for objections"

Blaming all of the other participants in a meeting for not catering to someone who is shy is ridiculous.
If the woman cannot be assertive enough to do the job then she isn't, by definition, qualified.
I'm sorry, but most jobs require more than the degree you earned in the safe environment of University.

Essentially it is a demand that men act more like women and women getting upset when they don't.

[Meh Gerbil]

This is a perfect issue for illustrating why liberalism is so regressive:

In the example I posted about my daughter and her physics education - and her complaint about men not listening to her I was left with two choices.
1: Liberal Solution: I could petition the school to enforce a policy where my daughter would be guaranteed equal time with the men in the physics lab
2: Natural Solution: I could tell my daughter to learn the skills necessary to make them listen.

The liberal solution, to change the behavior of the men, would work in the short term until she found herself in an environment where the men had not been taught that lesson or the governing authority was unwilling to enforce such a compromise. In short, the liberal solution sets up a woman for eventual failure. Ironically enough, it actually makes the men stronger because they adapt to work in an environment where artificial rules are enforced and they can work with the natural solution as well. My daughter is left weak with this solution.

The natural solution, to make my daughter strong and assertive, works in the long term in all environments. It isn't dependent upon the actions/attitudes of others and it makes my daughter a more capable person. This is the solution that stands the trials of a professional work environment and ultimately, it is the solution that every successful women outside a academia has embraced. It is the natural solution and it is unavoidable.

Liberalism is regressive because ultimately it leaves people in a weakened state.
See: minorities in the U.S.A.