Mansplaining: What a woman accuses a man of doing when she's embarrassed by needing something explained to her.

Women get a mansplaining hotline:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sweden-mansplaining-hotline-woman-get-to-report-patronising-male-colleagues-a7418491.html

What a bore -- and what a burden for getting anything done.

What an excuse for not getting anything done.

Exactly. Whining about how victimized you are doesn't count.

PS I "Amysplain" to people all the time. I try to do it kindly when they're wrong about something I know, because if you don't yank away somebody's dignity, they're more likely to listen to what you have to say.

Women get a mansplaining hotline: ~ Snoopy at September 24, 2017 4:27 AM

From the linked article: Unionen said the commonplace practice diminishes women, by making them appear less competent than they are.

Really? Diminishes?

Why is woman so easily diminished that a blowhard interrupting her can send her into a fit of the vapors?

Why can't a woman simply crush the mansplainer under the weight of her expertise? Why does she have to go running to a hotline? Why is she diminished?

And what do we call a woman who inflates her own expertise in a subject and talks over any real experts in the room, male or female?

"Mansplain" is a silly portmanteau and a whiney insult that does next to nothing to advance the male-female dialectic.

And is it a sign of the impending apocalypse that "mansplain" does not trigger my computer's autocorrect?

Allow me to manspread whilst I mansplain you how to change a tire.

Neither man word triggered a spelling/grammar underlining in my browser. Hmmm...

I like to tease a woman of my close acquaintance with this...

"ACTUALLY, Diana — and I don't know if you've ever had a man explain this to you before..."

"ACTUALLY, Diana, that's not what 'mansplaining' is ..."

It helps when both parties have a sense of humor.

From the linked article: "Unionen said the phone line, which will be staffed by a gender expert and a group of feminist politicians, comedians and scientists, is 'about equality'".

A gender expert? What the hell is a gender expert? I would like to argue with one.

A gender expert and a group of feminist politicians, comedians and scientists. No clowns? Or maybe they're all clowns.

I'd like to get the number for that phone line. Might be fun to make some calls to it when we have our next Men's Beer and Cigar Night.

Kevin: ""ACTUALLY, Diana, that's not what 'mansplaining' is ..."

Ha ha! It might be fun to call the Unionen hotline and explain to them what mansplaining really is and how women are affected by it.

There's only one way to get my wife's undivided attention ... Lift her cellphone right out of her hands and plop it into my shirt pocket ... GENTLY ... and slowly. If she's so minded, she can, and will, hang onto it. Otherwise, she let's it go, and I have her full undivided attention! Peace and harmony! Love and laughs! While I mansplain something to her!

Personally, I try to avoid using slang or politically-charged made-up words of almost any kind, since they're going to become obsolete anyway, most of the time.

But if I think someone's being condescending, regardless of that person's sex, I will definitely say so. (I can think of only one person in my life I've ever accused, that way.) It's all a matter of being willing to define exactly what you mean, if you complain.

And thanks, Amy, for spelling this out:

"I try to do it kindly when they're wrong about something I know, because if you don't yank away somebody's dignity, they're more likely to listen to what you have to say."

"Kindly" is the key word. Also, one doesn't assume that others don't know what one is about to say unless there's a ton of evidence in that direction.

To repeat something (for those who haven't read this already):

I know a Polish psychologist in his late 80s who owns at least 5,000 books, and he's known me for years, so he knows I don't have a degree in psychology. Yet, if he wants to talk about, say, B.F. Skinner, he will ALWAYS ask first "what do you know about Skinner" before assuming that I don't know what he's about to tell me. Same goes for any other subject, psychology-related or not. It's not as though I'm a teenager, after all.

There's nothing noble about this; it's just a common courtesy that everyone should practice. Just as people who ASK for an explanation of something should be polite and humble enough to listen at least up to the point where they've heard everything they didn't already know - and say "thank you."

I've shared this before. I do this to everyone on Facebook and Twitter, not just women.

And what do we call a woman who inflates her own expertise in a subject and talks over any real experts in the room, male or female?

Hillary.

Or as Amy might say, "the adult."

Leaving out snide comments and being truly condescending, these women object to men explaining anything to them, but if you have a question about EPA gas mileage rule effects on car engine design, or about how the internet works, or about AI, or about self-driving cars, or about how to dress a deer (no, not with pants), or how to get skunks out from under your deck, who are you going to ask? A man. Not because women CAN'T understand these topics but because they have not been interested enough to learn about them. For many topics there are very precise answers to questions and women tend to get upset at this specificity as if it is the man's fault that there is a right and wrong answer. Among my guy friends we may debate these topics, but as soon as it is clear that one of us knows more about it, we listen carefully to him explain it--and if he is bullsh*tting us, he gets pushback. To guys it MATTERS what the right answer is because being a man is all about competence. But this all seems unfriendly and too competitive to women. To men, one must earn respect by being competent and informed but women (esp these women) want to be respected just because they are breathing. Sorry, not going to happen.

who are you going to ask? A man.
_________________________________________

Well, nowadays, it's quicker to go online, and so long as the site LOOKS like a reputable source, the person who's searching generally doesn't stop to ask whether the answer was written by a man or woman.

Also, I think it's very important to remember that there IS more than one definition of "respect."

At least four, I say. The trouble begins when people confuse them. In order:

Grudging acceptance (such as when a bully stops bullying or pushing strangers aside on the sidewalk)

Common courtesy (such as not using snide tones of voices, whether the other person is younger or older - or remembering to ask what my elderly friend did)

Deference (as to a superior)

Genuine admiration.

Miss Manners understands this well, and she says that, regarding the need for kids to respect their parents, she would prefer people to use the expression "TREAT your parents with respect."

Here's why:

July 2, 2008;

Dear Miss Manners:

A group of friends and I are having a discussion regarding good manners and respect. My view is that respect comes from understanding and having good manners, whereas it is being put to me that good manners and respect are two distinctly separate things that can be had one without the other. We would be very interested in learning your thoughts on the matter, and I would consider them to be the final word on the subject.

Gentle Reader: Promising Miss Manners that her word will be the final one, even before you have heard it -- now, that is respect. She thanks you.
Yet she admits that the term "respect" is rather loosely used in the manners business. This leads to the sort of argument in which a parent says, "You have to show more respect for Granny," and the child replies, "Why, since she just got out of jail for petty larceny?"

The sort of respect to which the parent is referring is a part of good manners. It means exhibiting consideration toward everyone and showing special deference to those who are older or in a position of authority.

But the child hears the word to mean the genuine admiration felt for someone who has proved himself to be worthy of it. That sort of respect is, indeed, a thing apart, which etiquette cannot mandate.

Manners require only that people show respect, although with the secret hope that the outward form will become internalized. What people feel as they size up individuals is up to them.

(end of column)

So, one might say: "Courtesy is your right; admiration is what you earn."

However, "common courtesy towards adults," when you're a child, clearly mandates deference, though not admiration.

While I don't know any women who "tend to get upset at this specificity" (aside from the need to get pen and paper to take notes and how humiliating that might feel - at first) I WILL say that Isaac Asimov had it right when he said:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

I suspect, at least, that that sprang from America and Canada's long-term love affair with hedonism - and the resulting mental and physical laziness. Nowadays, the attitude of many kids AND their parents, unfortunately, is that fun isn't fun unless it's useless and/or passive. E.g., swimming is fun to most kids and keeps them in shape, but it's still not as useful, overall, as carpentry - nor as mentally challenging, by a long shot.

Another example: In Chapter 17 of "Farmer Boy" it says: "...Some July evening Father would say: 'All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Tomorrow we’ll go berrying.' Almanzo didn’t say anything, but inside he was all one joyful yell."

Compare that to THIS 1985 comic strip from Canada (the first two panels, I mean):

http://fborfw.com/stripcatalog/indexdate.php?q=1985-09-08&Submit=Search

In case anyone doesn't know, "Farmer Boy" takes place in the 1860s.

But more importantly...I got a surprise, today! Another example of what is NOT "fun" - i.e., worthwhile - to modern kids!

http://babyblues.com/comics/september-25-2017/

Reminder: Cartoonists who write strips about human families DO try to be more realistic than those who don't, as a rule. So strips like this don't come out of a vacuum. Which is why they're often used in, say, psychology textbooks - even decades ago.

(Personally, I suspect that if the movie "Idiocracy" comes to pass, it will have less to do with the way people use/don't use birth control and a LOT more to do with the fact that even Well-Educated parents - I know several - who would never let their kids eat a few pounds of candy just because they finished their vegetables, but who think nothing of letting kids wallow in hours of anti-intellectual screen time every day just because they'd finished their chores and homework. Do they really think that all that instant gratification is harmless to their attention span, literacy, work ethic, social skills, etc? Everything that ISN'T screen time becomes...boring and stupid. Honestly.)

lenona: In defense of parents who let their kids spend a lot of time watching TV, there are fewer and fewer safe options. If people see your kids outside and they disapprove, they will report you to child welfare. You could end up with a criminal record for letting your kid play at the park.

This isn't just some crazy off-beat fear. This is happening to me and my husband right now. I'm not worried about injury or pedophiles in the trees, but I do fear my neighbors.

I spend a lot of time doing things with my kids, but I also have laundry to do, meals to cook and bills to pay, so TV it is. It's not my preference. I'd rather let her play outside. But that's not an option anymore if I want to keep her.

Well, nowadays, it's quicker to go online,

In other words most likely a man

In defense of parents who let their kids spend a lot of time watching TV, there are fewer and fewer safe options.
_____________________________________

I REALLY don't follow.

Yes, of course it's outrageous that kids aren't "allowed" outside due to the appalling busybodies in neighborhoods that are already pretty safe. However, aside from the fact that parents HAVE to ensure, one way or another, that their kids are getting all the healthful exercise they need (can't they take their kids jogging With Them, for one?), there are tons of mentally challenging activities that kids can do indoors, even aside from reading. Even three-year-olds, who can't be expected to stay out of traffic, REALLY need to be kept away from screens, as any pediatrician will tell you. They don't even need toys, necessarily - just playmates. (Toys are often substitutes for playmates, when you think about it.)

Plenty of people will tell you that it's important for kids to understand that screen-time limits will stay firmly in place even when the kids just plain don't WANT to do anything else. I.e., non-screen activities can't "take away" time from the screen if one doesn't allow more than two hours of screen time per day anyway.

However, that doesn't mean that parents should back off on reading aloud every time they hear a kid scream "I hate reading." After all, as Jim Trelease pointed out in "The Read-Aloud Handbook," would we back off when it comes to kids' protests against things like toothbrushing or getting exercise? Of course not. Kids will get over their hatred if parents refuse to take the hatred too seriously. You don't ask kids' permission; you just put them through the motions, matter-of-factly, until they accept the daily routines.

Bottom line: You don't need to spend a lot of money to keep kids occupied with mentally challenging pastimes. A few library books on such projects, plus a few everyday materials around the house, should work.

Besides, as the Tiger Mom said, these days, telling kids they can just "follow their passions" often means surrendering them and their brains to Facebook. Not smart.

Luj, you know what I meant, since I spelled it out. Don't play dumb.

Oh, I forgot to say: Even a 3-year-old can "help" with chores, even if it's just folding socks or doing the simplest kitchen chores. Even if the chores end up getting dragged out by twice as much time, such a daily habit helps teach small children that they have no right to be bored when there's work to be done, because they have no right to be passively entertained after a certain age when the parent is slaving away.

Besides, does any adult claim that doing chores together with kids doesn't count as "quality time"? I can only hope not.