quixotecoyote wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:There are some aspects of breast feeding here that haven't been touched on, and that is that while breast feeding the woman can't get pregnant again. In hunter gather societies this would be a benefit until the child could follow the mother on it's own and gather some of it's own food. So in these societies partial breast feeding probably went on until around age four.

That one's right up there with "you can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up."

eta: Well, ok. In hunter-gatherer societies where all feeding is breastfeeding with no formula there's a better chance. But it's all about whether you suppress enough hormones with breastfeeding to stop the menstrual cycle from kicking in again. At least, AFAIK..

MacIver wrote:

Matt H wrote:I simply don't get mothers suckling their children past infancy.

I don't agree with it but I get it. The mothers idolise their relationship with their kids and attempt to stop time by continuing breastfeeding beyond the reasonable point, usually to the detriment of their children's mental health.

Paul G wrote:

Regina wrote:

Paul G wrote:

Regina wrote:
You'll find that attitude mainly among the earth-mother, tree-hugger, organic woo priestesses. Some of which will breastfeed their unfortunate kids well into toddlerdom and beyond.

What's wrong with that?

Breastfeeding a kid already in primary school? I think it should be obvious.

You said toddlerdom and beyond, primary school starts at 7.

Aside from the ewww factor what is actually wrong with it?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:I know that when I was in primary school, I had designs on the breasts of my second grade teacher.... she was hot-- made my little 2d grade self feel all squishy and tingly. I never convinced her to molest me, though...

I think I feel sick.

Scot Dutchy wrote:There are plenty of kids that get breast milk up to the age of 10. There was even a case of a 13 year old still suckling.

The ad copy, in essence, precludes the idea that someone might buy the deal for herself, or that someone might buy it for his or her girlfriend, for that matter. Instead, it must be someone buying it for a male significant other. Not only is this assumption infuriating, it excludes customers. In a recession, why would you want to preclude people from your target audience, at all, full stop?

Mononoke wrote:http://skepchick.org/2012/02/seeing-the-patriarchy/

That place is like an echo chamber

xtraordinaryevidence wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

horacerumpole wrote:I know that when I was in primary school, I had designs on the breasts of my second grade teacher.... she was hot-- made my little 2d grade self feel all squishy and tingly. I never convinced her to molest me, though...

I think I feel sick.

Wait -- something wrong with a boy at the age of 8 or 9 thinking about girls sexually? Trust me. It's pretty normal.

The last line was a joke. Relax. Criminy....

There's nothing wrong with it, but 8 is quite a bit younger than average isn't it? I started puberty at 10, and I thought that was quite young. Maybe I'm wrong.

Rebecca Watson
02.06.2012
REPLY

MikefromCanada, aka Anarchy, has been booted from Skepchick for excessive shitposting that went above and beyond the call of shitposter duty.

tolman wrote:

Mononoke wrote:http://skepchick.org/2012/02/seeing-the-patriarchy/

That place is like an echo chamber

Still, it is interesting that 'the patriarchy' seems now to be defined largely by a particular subset of males making sexual comments about people who post photos of themselves on the internet, and advertising agencies selling different fantasies to different customers.

lamuella
02.06.2012
REPLY

so, that’s 9 comments from the original post to the first piece of mansplaining.

Who had 9 comments in the sweepstakes?


MikeFromCanada
02.06.2012
REPLY

As a feminist, can you please tell me how you can justify the use of a gendered insult? (Mansplaining)


marilove
02.06.2012
REPLY

Do you know what mansplaining means? It is also used toward women who also try to mansplain (lookin’ at you, Michelle Bachmann).


djp928
02.06.2012
There are lots of insults that are used for more than just their main purpose. Calling a straight man a “fag” is still an insult towards gays.


fensterbaby
02.06.2012
Yes, but…in all fairness, it is gendered “mansplain.” It’s a portmanteau of “man” and “explain.” It is not different in character than saying “chick logic” or “woman logic.”

And, it is used quite often – I’ve seen it – against any man who voices an opinion that isn’t shared by the person using the term.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not telling you not to use it. I just think to rationalize it as not a sexist term can’t be justified, in my opinion. It is a sexist term. It’s saying that something is a “man explanation” and is therefore to be discounted.


marilove
02.06.2012
You cannot even begin to compare “Fag” to “mansplain”.

Furthermore, you cannot be sexist toward men. Sexism can hurt men, but you cannot be sexist toward the opressor. Oppression doesn’t work like that.

Men haven’t been oppressed since the beginning of time. Women and minorities have.

This is a fantastic skit by the always fantastic Louis CK. It has to do with race, not sexism, but it’s slightly related (because white MEN have it good, man). You just can’t say anything that will offend or oppress the group of people who have oppressed minorities, including women, since the beginning of time. Again, oppression doesn’t work like that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t be a dickwad to a man, and I’d say just calling a man a mansplainer JUST because he’s a dude is a pretty dick thing to do, but it’s not sexist.


sphinooccipital
02.06.2012
No, fenster, it is not used “against any man who voices an opinion that isn’t shared…” I posit that actually you are socialized to be unaware of how said man is behaving in a condescending, belittling manner, where such attitudes are much clearer to those who are on the receiving end of them.

Moreover, read up on the discussions of privilege and then you will see that it is not AT ALL equivalent to demeaning women’s logic. Here’s a quick explanation:

Using “chick logic” not only uses the trivializing, sexualized term “chick,” but it also implies that women, by the fact of their biology, are not capable of using actual logic. It also bashes people who have historically been marginalized from education and continue to be deprecated in popular media about their intelligence, for socially-constructed disadvantages over which they have little to no control.

In contrast, “mansplain” means that a person is exploiting their socially-established (usually) gender privilege in a thoughtless, self-entitled, belittling way. It is holding people who are in positions of power or assumed social advantage accountable for the way they are treating others. This is especially important because, by virtue of their privileges, their attitudes and examples can have far-reaching effects on society.

To make this very simple:

Belittling the marginalized for their disadvantages = bad.
Holding the privileged accountable for their actions/attitudes = good and necessary for progress and equality.


djp928
02.06.2012
I can’t seem to reply to the actual post I want to reply to. I don’t know if it’s locked or if it’s just a limitation of the software (too many nested comments?) If I’m doing something wrong someone please let me know. (Yes, I’ve read the comment policy.)

Anyhow, I never said “mainsplaining” was sexist or reverse sexism or anything like that. I said it was insulting. If you have to explain why it’s *not* insulting every time you use the term to the uninitiated then that to me is enough evidence that it is an insulting term. It’s a pejorative term with the word “man” in it. And not by happenstance either, by design. It doesn’t matter to me if you use the term against women too. I still find it insulting.

You can tell me I need to examine my privilege and I won’t deny it. I’m doing my best to do more listening than speaking, to learn something new rather than reinforce old biases. But what I’m hearing is that I’m not allowed to feel insulted because of A, B, and C, and that sounds like exactly the kind of condescending explaining that “mansplaining” is supposed to embody.


sphinooccipital
02.06.2012
djp, you’re not being “insulted.” You’re being held accountable for your privilege. It’s the privilege that’s being attacked, not necessarily you (unless of course you are exploiting that privilege to treat others badly, which it doesn’t seem that you, personally, are doing). I know it’s uncomfortable to have privilege challenged, but that doesn’t mean it’s an “insult”–it just means that critically examining our self-perception as to how we believe we are versus the effects of how we act in the world can be deeply unsettling. However, that’s a necessary stage to go through to actually deal with systemic injustice in the world.

And, the fact of the matter is, with systemic systems of privilege, privileged people inflict their privilege on others even if they’re VERY committed to social justice. It’s a whole mess of assumptions, snap judgements, biases, cultural narratives, etc., etc. that we’re not even AWARE we’re engaging in. I know I’ve caught myself in some ridiculously racist assumptions over the years, when I had no idea I was doing it at the time. So, I’ve learned never to be offended when people talk about “Shit White People Say”–I know I’ve done enough stupid things in my time. Instead of trying to silence the criticism, I consider myself reminded to examine my own habits to make sure I’m not part of the problem. I have been before, and I will be again, I know, despite my best efforts.

So, djp, odds are you’ve mansplained, and will mainsplain again. In fact it’s staggeringly unlikely that this is not the case. Please understand that this is not a personal fault–men are socialized to do this from infancy, and certainly all through your schooling and adolescent/young adult social interactions. It’s just one of those nasty things that even though you’d never intentionally do it, it can happen without you meaning to. But, when you see or hear the term “mansplain,” please consider the twinge you feel as a reminder to make sure you’re part of the solution, not as being “insulted.” But, it needs to give that twinge because it needs to remind you that yes, even you, might mansplain.

And, consider that when people (you or others) mansplain, others are being harmed and having their opinions/intelligence devalued, and addressing the behavior and its roots in gender socialization are essential to solving this problem. I understand where you’re coming from, and believe me I know how much it can hurt to have to examine privilege, but it’s really important that we not place our comfort above naming and solving a problem.


sphinooccipital
02.06.2012
REPLY

No, sorry, Mike, mansplaining is not a “gendered” insult–it is a criticism of male privilege, and how men are socialized in our society. Acting in a way that bullies or demeans someone based on your privilege is in fact wrong, and we’re not going to pretend that this gender-related privilege isn’t gendered, just for the sake of your fee-fees or other denialism.


marilove
02.06.2012
That, and women can also mansplain. Michelle Bachmann is amazing at this. As is Sarah Palin. And don’t get me started on Anne Coulter! Women can be sexist/misogynist as well. It’s not just a problem with men; it’s a problem with society.

I think people see “patriarchy” and assume it’s ONLY about men, when it’s not. It’s about a sexist/patriarchal SOCIETY, which includes everyone.

Gay people can be highly sexist! And it’s not just a republican/conservative thing, either. Isn’t Chris Matthews (of MSNBC) known to be kind of a sexist dolt, for instance?


MikeFromCanada
02.06.2012
Yes, in every sense of the word, mansplaining is a gendered insult. And you feminists continue to use it.

Mansplaining: The fact or action of explaining something in a condescending or self-justifying manner, originally and especially of a man to a woman.

It’s is sexist.


djp928
02.07.2012
Still can’t seem to reply exactly where I want to, so I apologize for this being in the wrong place.

Anyhow, please don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to deny that mansplaining as a thing (as it is defined by the feminist community) exists, nor am I trying to defend myself against the accusation of having done it. Shit no, I know I’ve done it. The very first time someone explained to me with specific examples what the term actually meant, I was like “Oh. Yeah, shit, done that. Many times. Whoops.”

That’s my real point–someone had to explain it to me in detail first. I know, that’s true of most things in life. Nobody is born just knowing things. But the term seems easy to understand on the surface, and I’d wager most people seeing the word for the first time come to the same conclusion I did at first–that it has something to do with the act of explaining while male, and somehow this is bad in and of itself. Well no, it actually doesn’t have anything to do with being male at all, when you get down to it. It’s about “explaining” from a position of privilege, generally in an attempt to silence the “complainer”–white feminist women do it to black feminist women disturbingly often, I’m told. The term got its name because men hold the lion’s share of the privilege, and are in position to do it the most.

But if it’s not really about being male, why does it still carry that name? It seems like a needlessly confusing and inflammatory word to use when the entire subject of privilege and systemic sexism is already such a huge minefield to navigate for the uninitiated (meaning, basically, white males.) At every point there is a new and legitimate concern to stop dismissing and start taking seriously, and each one is a new potential drop-out point, a point where it would be all too easy to stop trying to navigate through this minefield you didn’t even know was there yesterday and instead head back to your comfort zone of being white and male and straight and not having to deal with any of this if you don’t choose to. I agree that feeling uncomfortable (to say the least) is part of the journey, or the awakening if you wish to call it that. It couldn’t be otherwise. You can’t navigate this minefield without stepping on mines and getting some new pre-conception or prejudice you didn’t even know you had blown to shit. It just seems to me like this is an unnecessary mine.

Anyway, I’m getting long winded and terrified that I’m just engaging in more mansplaining without even realizing it (wouldn’t be the first time, won’t be the last.) I did see some of the comments down-thread about how this shouldn’t even be the focus of the discussion, and I agree that it’s a minor point, but it just seems like a minor point that keeps coming up and has an easy fix. I do try to use each new point where I feel challenged as a chance to examine why I feel uncomfortable, and whether I’ve got a legitimate concern or I’m just trying to unconsciously protect another piece of privilege that I don’t want to let go of just yet. This one just keeps coming up and poking at me over and over, though.


lamuella
02.06.2012
REPLY

it’s a gendered insult because it deals with a gendered concept. Or is your new claiming that any acknowledgement of gender is antifeminist?


marilove
02.06.2012
The patriarchy doesn’t just deal with gender and gender alone, though. MANY women are part of the patriarchy, as I have pointed out several times. Mansplaining has more to do with the patriarchy than it does with men.