“Well, that article I read said that women are attracted to intelligent men. The best way to show off my intelligence to a woman is to always act like I know more about any given subject than she does. After all, if I admit ignorance on any subject, she’ll think less of me and my ego and masculine pride can’t handle that.”

-Written with sarcasm but it is a genuine problem. I think there are a lot of men who equate asking for help with admitting weakness. Since they believe that men are always supposed to appear strong, they will never ask for help; especially not from a woman. To take the most cliched example ever, men don’t ask for directions because they don’t see getting lost as an occasional mistake that everyone makes sometimes. They see getting lost as an embarrassing failure that shows they do not possess the skill to navigate; a skill they believe they should have in order to be a man’s man.

And what you and I are talking about are separate things. I’m obviously not saying that any attempt to have a conversation with a woman is automatically sexist or showboating. That would be ridiculous. However, there are plenty of men who view women as more infantile than men and struggle to see them as equals. This often leads to them taking up one-sided conversations where, instead of listening and responding in kind, they are continually attempting to demonstrate their own superiority.
Look, things like sexism and mansplaining are not totalities. Just because they happen doesn’t mean you, personally, do it. Just because you, personally, do not do it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

I’m sorry, I just don’t understand. It seems to me like you are taking this personally but there is no one here who is accusing you of anything. Let people talk about their experiences. If you have something to add, feel free. However, trying to shut down any conversation about these issues just because you don’t do it or your friends don’t do it seems unnecessary and counter productive.

No, I completely understand. The absence of tone in text requires us to insert our own and it becomes really easy to project feelings that aren’t there or to miss ones that are.
I also understand what you’re saying. There is certainly a time and place for mentorship and training and that relationship should have no regard for gender (although we should all aspire to be able to teach without being condescending).
However, I do think that there is an entire different level that this can be taken to where it crosses the boundary from reasonable explanation to a sexist dismissal of the other individual’s qualifications. For a first hand perspective of what I’m talking about, I was recently reading an article on what the author referred to as “the male glance” and how common it is for women to have their works or accomplishments dismissed. I’ll link it here if you’re interested. It is really long and I can completely understand if you don’t want to read the whole thing. If you read any of it, though, I would suggest scrolling down to the section titled “The Bad Scientists: A Fairy Tale” because it does a great job of illustrating the sort of interactions I’m referring to: http://www.vqronline.org/essays-articles/2018/03/male-glance

No problem. Honestly, I had found it really interesting myself and had been kind of looking for an excuse to share it. If you’re at all interested, I originally came across it because of a retweet from the author of How To Be A Werewolf, another webcomic that I would absolutely recommend.

The more popular the word becomes, the more it’ll be misused. (I just hope it doesn’t get as bad as “hacker” or “literally”)

If you’re doing it to men, then perhaps it’s more accurate to call it condesplaining. It’s still a bad habit. Try asking how much they know first, instead of assuming.

To be fair, manspainling is unfortunately a real thing. Men (and most women) often don’t see it unless taught to be aware, because we are conditioned to it. There are simple things to look for when you have a conversation (or watch a man/men and woman/women talking)—like how much women is interrupted versus men. However, it does get overused (and even misused), and it can be hurtful—especially between people who know each other. I’ll admit I’ve done it to my husband. After we talked about it we both came to the conclusion that it’s not a kind thing to do, but neither is it when he sometimes talks down to me (this for us can also be related to the fact he’s older—but it’s still ridiculous if it’s a regular thing and a habit he needs to work on correcting). It is much kinder (and effective—if you want someone to listen) to point out hurtful actions/words and explain why they are hurtful/offensive rather than using labels—even if it is a more common trait of someone who comes from a privileged place.

Gah!!!!

The point you’re missing, or pehaps that should be trying to mansplain away,, is that it doesn’t matter why guys are doing it. It’s a pattern of behaviour that enforces the assumption that women are inferior to men. You can try that with Tylikat and they’ll just laugh at you, but because most women have been socialised to be less assertive than men, it more often serves to discourage women from expressing their own viewoint, makes for a hostile workplace – even if you can’t see that – tends to destroy their career progression and ultimately drives the typical, perfectly capable, women out of entire industries like software. Been there, seen it happen.

Oh, I’ve seen this one before. “If you complain about being bullied then actually you’re using it to bully people.”

And talk about missing the point. The issue isn’t my side of the argument placing a value on assertiveness. A woman is equally valuable to me whether they are assertive or not. So please demonstrate anywhere I have implied women are inferior.

The issue is that assertiveness is 1) being used as a measure of competence in determining career progression, rather than actual competence (and the number of jobs where being able to shout loudest is a valuable asset is relately small), and 2) that overly-assertive men are being allowed to drive women away by creating a hostile work environment.

It’s really easy to claim “Oh, it’s not us, women just aren’t as interested in techie stuff”, but in that case the women who make it to the top in tech should be a similar mix of assertive and non-assertive as in the general population, rather than the dominance of assertive types we see. If something changes a population from one ratio to another, then something is selecting for that change.

“the hysterical imagination of activists”

I’m presuming you don’t know the history of ‘hysterical’ being used to undermine women? And that all the things that were once claimed to be ‘women’s hysteria’ turned out to be scientific fact?

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719

…this Ohio you speak of is strange!

As a cishet nerd, I would probably prefer the opposite situation. Nothing sexier than listening and thinking “I’m pretty sure that was all English” because it’s something she knows/is passionate about but I don’t feel the need to own it or correct it. If married couples can have separate towels, they should allow each other separate academic fields!

Disclaimer: I had this sort of exchange a lot with platonic friends in high school (it was a magnet school). I’ll take their word for it.

Useful advice. Thanks. I usually try to self-label (politely) when entering a space not “about me” or “for me” or even one which seems to lean towards other groups. I figure this way, if I’m not welcome that will be indicated and anyone who doesn’t want to hear it will be able to screen me out.

That all being said, part of being polite is updating the lingo. So thank you for the guidance and new perspective!

I’m quite aware of the classic format of mansplaining, but when Anima mansplains “acknowledging your emotions is bad”, they’re also reiterating one of the most self-destructive tenets of MRA advocates. It’s a point the set of {things ‘explained’ by mansplainers} and the set of {MRA core tenets} intersects, even if the set of things mansplained is normally much wider than just MRA beliefs.

Not for non-programming languages, no. Syntax guides: great for PERL, bad for IRL…

Actually, Anima never claimed that “acknowledging your emotions is bad”. All she is saying is that Menace is a power fantasy, while she is patrick’s rationality, and for this reason she is better suited to rule the city, to be the driving force of patrick’s mind,

Correct. i’m guessing that she was the second personality, born when lord boys removed his desire to be loved and his fear. The “Rational” part of him who made money by stealing credit card password and speculating on wall street. Menace was born later, when he discovered the existence of other biodynamics. My point is that she never directy stated that being devoid of human emotions is the ideal state of being: she is implying that, given the situation, giving her the rulership of the city is the better option, compared to destroying the city. Which is actually the position of most of the commenters, who are reprimanding Alison for her choice to destroy the city.

I love it! Anima is his feminine side. And she’s just as much a fuckwit as the rest of the crew! (But in a distinct and consistent sort of way.)

“including the unconscious self-censorship of being socialised not to ‘be pushy'”

…ah, but then you have people like me, and imagine what I’d be without it? (Stops, considers my family. Okay, I’d probably be a lot like one of my brighter, more driven cousins. Maybe like H, but… well, we did suspect he was bipolar, and I’m not. It always terrifies me how much I have in common with my father, considering what a horrible person he is.)

Ew. While I certainly have leadership, er, tendencies (especially if I don’t think the job is being done very well – I have no particular need to be in power, I just want someone not to be making an utter hash of it) I don’t actually like pure management positions. Well, so far. (I tend to get bored, and while I get unbored, no one likes that process much. Research is so much better as it gives me so much scope for keeping myself amused.)

Mm, I’m also being a little flip. I did start out aiming at diplomatic service… because I thought the work was interesting, and because I figured I was unlikely to end up in a long term primary partnership, which left me well suited to it. (Some of this is “assessments one makes when one is nineteen”, but…)

If the work was sufficiently challenging, I don’t think I’d end up bored. Depending on who I was working with, and how possible it was to accomplish things in the work, it might be pretty soul crushing for me. I don’t mind playing politics, but I like leavening it with being able to build and create things. I might do better at lower levels of government. (I came very close to running for city council as a Green once, but that was mostly for amusement value. And because I was homesick for the district I was born in and wanted to raise some hell. My spouse was horrified because he thought I was far too moderate to be a Green, which is largely true, but also reflected his never bothering to understand my background.)

But… I don’t know. I have a bunch of mixed feelings about the State Department – much of the time I feel like I dodged a bullet there. But I have deeply mixed feelings about having not been around for the invasion of Afghanistan (you know my story about trying to volunteer, yes? …and not because I supported it, in case that’s not clear) And I spent a bunch of the time I was at MS feeling like I was too politically naive to pull off that environment, which doesn’t really bode well, does it? (I was a lot less so by the time I left, and that was my twenties…)

I don’t know. Science policy still is my best idea in that direction, and who knows if I’ll even try it? And I’m babbling, and it’s late. Long, productive day in the lab, and I should go fall on my face.

Seriously? That cracks me up. The army did pretty much immediately look at my background and tell me I really should be a Statie (under other circumstances I might have protested, but, reasons), and you know the rest of the story. I would have been best suited to Northern Afghanistan if they put me anywhere interesting at all (or possibly elsewhere in Central Asia). The joke amongst my friends was about teaching women martial arts in my off hours, which would have been a nifty way of risking death.

I’m not a Green – well, it’s not a very cohesive party here, but the reason I was thinking of running as a Green is that I was most interested in shit-stirring, and if I ran as a democrat there was a reasonable chance I’d get elected (also, the democrats might have had better taste…) Which might have been another issue – I’ve deliberately put certain restrictions on any election campaigns I might ever have (or maybe the opposite – there are essentially no skeletons in my closet, if I ever run it will be the all-singing all-dancing skeleton cabaret), but a fake campaign might be a bit to far even if it would have been fun. (I’m not really a Democrat, either, but oh, our political system is messed up.)

…and science policy isn’t on the table for at least a few years (hey, I’m already committed to the robot lab) so I’m hoping we’ll be done with 45. And if not, all the more reason. I’m most interested in the international scene, but mostly it’s just about interesting work.

I was thinking of the Irish Brigid, and her associations with smithcraft, poetry, and excellence in warfare (and healing, and a bunch of other stuff – she rocks). And the Greek Athena, who is the goddess both of war and scholarship (for all that some of the plays have her saying some awful things). Not to mention the Hindu Saraswati, goddess of knowledge (mathematics in particular, ISTR) art and music…

It wouldn’t take me long to find more examples, but those were the ones on my mind 🙂