Holding the line on the scourge of sending an ‘app’ to do a website’s job isn’t mansplaining, or even part of having relevant expertise, it’s a reminder of universal jurisdiction. As with other sorts of especially heinous situations, basic human decency requires anyone in a position to act to do so, regardless of whether they are ordinarily party to the matter or not.
1 Like
Hmmm, in this context wouldn’t Barthes be mansplaining?
“Well actually, your bildungsroman is a metaphor for the isolation inherent in our fracturing society. Haven’t you read my paper on it?”
2 Likes
Oh, but Death of the Author (as I understand it) didn’t mean that the artist didn’t have an actual purpose in creating his work*, merely that the reader (viewer) is allowed their own interpretations, and their interpretation is valid, not verboten. (From a time when art appreciation was a practice in discerning the ‘great truths and meanings’ that the artist intended, and all else was poppycock, as I understand it)
But those interpretations are still personal - they can be argued, and others be convinced, but we’re still back to the “It means this to me.” again.
* Literally so (*literally*-literally, even) otherwise all art would be random and accidental, and not even most modern art is that. (I may not be being quite serious here, though :slight_smile:)
7 Likes
That cartoon and this entire thread is pretty much why I keep my mouth shut whenever possible.
7 Likes
Naturally, I was over-generalizing to save space in an already long post.
True.
But again, it depends on context, personality and tone.
With some people, I’m perfectly happy to assume that “You are sad because XY” is just shorthand for “It seems to me that you are said because XY; so I intend to do something about XY. If my assumption is incorrect, just tell me.”
Unfortunately, it is more likely that it means “I’ve heard your argument/request/complaint. I will ignore it. To justify that, I will claim that you’ve been dishonest about your reasons and that your actual reason is that you are just sad because XY.”
I remember reading about it a long time ago. It does not make sense; avoiding the verb “to be” does not prevent one from making unqualified statements of identity or of predication. Instead of fighting whether a dress “is” white or blue, people will fight over whether the dress “looks” white or blue.
I suspect that, if anything, E-Prime will tempt its users to sneak in absolute assertions without ever explicitly putting them in a sentence. Instead of stating that “This car is red”, I’ll just talk about “this red car” in the next sentence.
The main reason for that is probably that the system is rigged and they are conspiring. If, instead, we have to say that they have rigged the system, they have conspired in the past, remain in the state of conspiring at this very moment and will continue to conspire in the future, then that’s very cumbersome by comparison.
I can’t comment on English-speaking western culture, but I can’t confirm that from personal experience from Austria. But then, that is something that is very hard to observe objectively; I know the things I’d like to complain about, but I have no reliable way to judge whether other people have to swallow more or less. At least, I can’t come up with a proper gendered pejorative that is used in Austria.
I wasn’t talking of actual manipulative powerplay; it’s bad enough when someone unintentionally creates misunderstandings and then completely blames them on the other person, absolutely unwilling to even consider the possibility that they themselves might have been to blame for the misunderstanding. Using a misunderstanding as a powerplay after it has happend by accident and already cleared up does happen, but in general, the majority of unpleasant people I’ve met in my life are of the “inconsiderate and annoying” type and not of the “scheming” type.
I was born & raised and I still live in Austria, so that might account for some difference in experience. My personal experience with the English-speaking world is limited to two years of studying in Canada. I can’t accurately estimate where Austrian culture stands w.r.t. North American culture as far as gender equality is concerned. We’re old-fashioned in some ways, and way ahead in others.
And whenever people report personal experience about sexism on the bbs and I don’t observe the same thing in real life, I can’t tell whether it’s down to cultural differences or whether I just don’t see it.
The claim about condesplaining (I like that variant of the word) in the kitchen is indeed based on personal life experience. I’ve been a volunteer for the Austrian Scouts for a long time now, and that’s been coeducational since the early seventies (before my birth). The situation of having to cook for the group comes up regularly, as does the situation of having to give cooking advice/guidance to (mixed-gender) groups of young scouts. And we mostly work in mixed-gender teams of adults, so I guess I’ve shared kitchens with more different women than the average man.
Mind you, I’m not talking about some strict old fashioned “you’re a man, you have no business with cooking”, just the initial assumption of superior competence.
It just depends on what shared prejudices the artist can rely on. If no one ever complained that “men overexplain things”, then a comic that says “Men sometimes overexplain things, amirite?” won’t be understood. If it is common to think that “if you can’t read a woman’s mind, she’ll find an excuse to be angry at you”, then it’s perfectly reasonable to use that same comic to say “Women sometimes expect you to read their minds and get upset if you don’t, amirite?”.
As I am aware of both stereotypes, I really can’t tell which one the comic artist was thinking of, if it wasn’t both. I guess it’s the people who assume that the comic author is propagating a stereotype that they don’t like who are getting upset at the comic.
1 Like
I’m glad that worked out for you, then.
7 Likes
[error - unable to parse potential layers of sarcasm. aborting.]
8 Likes
10 Likes
I think you missed my point. Please don’t add ‘because XY’. The 'Because XY" was not accidentally left off. I am addressing statements of “what” or “how” someones inner state is, and specifically leaving off the “why” which is a whole other level of condescending to posit, but does often follow being told how you feel. The ‘because/why’ isn’t what I was addressing though, and specifically not so. Sorry if you misunderstood previously.
6 Likes
Fuck…
Now wonder the aliens won’t talk to us…
3 Likes
I often over explain things to myself… out loud, and it comes off as authoritative idiocy.
“Shut up, you American. You Americans, all you do is talk, and talk, and say “let me tell you something” and “I just wanna say.” Well, you’re dead now, so shut up.”
- Grim Reaper, Meaning of Life
5 Likes
This might need the Wikipedia definition - the ‘to be’ is a slight simplification, the effect, with practice, is to require sources and detail - and if something is your opinion, I recall breeding to qualify that (which would have at least ameliorated the circumstance in the cartoon, and the definition above definition for the proposed and actual 'splainings.
Sure - while I feel that the idea is personally helpful and a step in the right direction, I freely admit that is far from perfect. Flawed, even.
If nothing else, any rational linguistic structure (short, perhaps of Newspeak) can be gamed and abused in bad faith - for an extreme example: Give a sociopath E-Prime, wth the idea that this method is recognised to add rigour, and they’ll find ways to game it that allow them to say ‘but I must be right, it’s Correct.’
There’s has to be some good faith, and external argument analysis, just like we do with E(-normal).
(And even Newspeak didn’t succeed, it’s subtle, but the proof is in there.)
It’s not perfect, is not complete, but it’s an interesting idea, and at least a step in the right direction.
2 Likes
Okay, I think you deserve more background: RAW iswas (dammit) an admitted E’ advocate, and in writing an encyclopedia of conspiracy theories, attempted writing the thing in E-prime and quickly ran aground, because as he put it:
Attempts to write the present book in E-prime quickly proved hopelessly baroque and created useable prose. You need the “is of identity” to drive conspiracy theories.
'Everything Is Under Control - RAW & Miriam Joan Hill p278 - (Emphasis original)
(Is he right? Ask me again later, and I might change my mind ;))
This may be the same result you describe, but I think, for the opposite reason - If the ubiquitous ‘they’ of conspiracies aren’t defined, you have to ‘cite your sources’. But I still want to think that through.
Anyway, I’m rustier than I like to admit on the subject. And again cheerfully concede and admit that E’ is incomplete and imperfect. Happy to peel this off into a seperate thread if you want, or to agree to disagree (in as far as we do disagree)
While I’m interested in tools like this to break accidental/habitual ‘assertion from (assumed) authority’ (which is the classic ‘mansplain’), I’m getting less comfortable about wandering into the use of E-prime in proving that unfounded conspiracies are irrational …aaand going even further off-topic. (Not like I already have any kind of rep for that at all, oh, no. 
)
It works so well.
I just love the comment of “To call it “mansplaingin” is just as patronizing”. After all, isn’t “mansplaining” more or less a synonym of “patronizing”?
4 Likes
Why not publish cartoons that have the potential to unite rather than divide?
15 Likes
Why just feminists? People who aren’t feminists do it as well. And there are men who are feminists.
How about this phrasing: What can people do in order to communicate more effectively? How about by being honest and open, while staying civil with one another? Or is that too much to ask?
Questions, questions…
10 Likes
Like so?
23 Likes
Thank you.
I wonder what this cartoon means
3 Likes
