RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Mansplaining

Mansplaining | Result: keep, perhaps someone can bother with rewrite plans

Mansplaining (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This is ultimately a gender-based insult that doesn't add to social justice discourse -- it alienates rather than unifies allies of feminism. Having an article on mansplaining -- and supporting it wholeheartedly (with the exception of the embedded video) is like having an article on "fedora'd neckbearded basement-dwelling men". There is some scientific basis for males valuing female conversation less -- but this article does not reflect that, and perhaps cannot reflect that. Moreover, the current article essentially takes all cases of "males do something that goes against female interests" and claims it is "mansplaining". FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

   The article covers: men telling women they are wrong about the effects of rape, abortion, or birth control, a solely male group being named experts on birth control for the purposes of telling women how they're allowed to receive it, men telling women that they don't understand what it's like to be subjected to sexism, men having a panel about the question "why don't women like us" then shooting down the answers that women gave them, and a man telling a woman that she was wrong that women like her often felt objectified at conferences. It is quite disingenuous to portray that simply as "males do something that goes against female interests" -- these are each cases where men are telling women that the women don't truly understand what it's like to be a woman.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

   ...And regardless of if we like the term or not, it is missional and established, and furthermore - any criticism of the actual term it self also belongs in said article about the term. TL;DR: keep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

2. --The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 12:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
3. One problem with feminist discourse is that so little of it is about women. This article on a stupid bit of cant does us no favors, and basically condemns 49% of the human race for following the stereotypical assumptions shared by their culture. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
4. there are already terms for this kind of bebavior, why does this case need its own special term? Why must i learn bullshit terms invented by idiots to pretend i'm part of the in crowd? All internet portmanteau words should burn in a fire. Manufactroversy should be incinerated too, and its ashes scattered to the winds to prevent it becoming a shrine to ugly words that stick in the pallet when spoken aloud. These are words never uttered by human tongues. Many of these terms would be better placed in urban dictionary. That jolly list of MRA terms compiled by folk with far too much time on their hands especially. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

   If you're going to complain about people using language wrong, I hope you're aware that a "pallet" is a shipping container, and "bebavior" either looks like a typo or a neologism relating to Justin Bieber. --Ymir (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

5. Delete it. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Applesauce (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
7. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
8. Nothing about this or so many SJW tropes is remotely on mission. Conscience (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. No way. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Don't be inane. - David Gerard (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
3. I'm not convinced it alienates male allies, and even if it did, that's no reason to delete. Annquin (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

   It alienates me, and I'm a would-be male ally. I'm not a fan of third-wave feminism because of buzzwords like 'mansplaining'. It makes people who use it look like entitled little pricks, no offense. PBfreespace (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   A would-be ally who has to constantly be told how helpful they are and given all the attention was never an ally in the first place.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

4. Vulpius (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
5. The term is established and missional, so regardless of what we think of it, it should be covered. That being said, I think the term is a sexist term of abuse. I've actually been accused of mansplaining once in the wild, over an app called QuizUp, by a female who didn't even know I was a man - she just assumed. Whatever the term means, she was making a fallacious argument and I pointed that out, without bringing genitalia into the discussion. Doing that was somehow mansplaining; the message being that I had to shut up because I was the wrong sex, or something to that effect. The article is an obvious keep, and all valid criticisms should go in the article. If there's a lot to say on the term, then grow the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Don't see how this scares off potential allies. It would be better though with the addition of a legitimate criticism section and maybe how the usual non-ally suspects respond to the phenomenon.∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 19:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

   It scares me off, as a would-be male ally. Now of course, this term isn't the sole thing scaring me off; part of it is the 29 other derisive terms. PBfreespace (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

   A would-be ally who has to constantly be told how helpful they are and given all the attention was never an ally in the first place.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

7. It is really a thing, and as such there is something to document. Though the article itself is largely nonsense, and the part about Elevatorgate is your usual fiction writing. Watson discussed with Paula Kirby and others in a previous panel. Then the lift incident happened (a guy invited her for coffee in the confined lift) and she made the video retelling this non-event. She then had a spat with several female youtubers, including Stef McGraw, who made video responses. No mansplaining whatsoever. Then she made severe accusations at the beginning of a CFI Talk against McGraw, the audience "right now" and the atheist movement at large that they were allegedly complicit in rape culture — Watson literally brings up rape in context of an awkward lift coffee invite — and THIS is where it took off. Problem was, that many had not seen the talk, including Dawkins, leading to the familiar Motte and Bailey situation where Elevatorgate becae two and more things at once, which our favourite propagandameisters keep switching around like thimblerigger in Palermo. Dawkins responds to the "zero bad" situation, while the ongoing flamewar was already about rape culture, which then led the SJW zealots to pretend most people "hate women" because, thanks to the switch, they mean rape, while other people think it's about awkward proposals in confined spaces. Congratulations, btw, five years of massive disinformation, well done. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
8. If "regressive left" can remain then so can this one. Typhoon (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
9. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
10. But why? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
11. Definite keep.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
12. We're debating this?-(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
13. Perhaps we should incorporate this article into the article? Just because its a controversial new concept should not justify the need to delete it from Rationalwiki. Let's not delude into Conservapedia logic with new ideas AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
14. The term exists and is used and the question of whether it alienates specific groups is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether RW should have an article on it. The only reason I'd support a delete would be if delete proponents could make a case the article is wholly wrong in its depictions of the term and its use or some similar "It's an unfair hatchet job" line. So far, I haven't seen any of that. I think, however, that a splaining could serve as a new home for this article, given that it has given rise to other splaining versions (I'm guessing that, in practice, whitesplaining is probably the most frequent variant in the US). A Google search on the variants of splaining are indicative: mansplaining (536,000 hits), splaining (146,000 hits), whitesplaining (31,800 hits), leftsplaining (1130 hits), rightsplaining (547 hits). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Just to highlight the suggestions in the Goat section below to create a new, general article about splaining, though given the prevalence suggested by the Google search results I mentioned in my Keep vote, it could be argued that other types of splaining should be a subsection of mansplaining. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Goat

Well, we could always call it "condesplaining" since the article itself talks other forms of "'splaining" to other minorities on minority issues.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 07:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

second thought, i agree with this. Rename Splaining and have "mansplaining" links go there. Examples are turds like Bill O'Rielly telling black Americans how to fix their communities. Petey Plane (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

splaining is a term that is actually in currency too. Support move - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Support move.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would have no problem with calling it "splaining" but we would need to give more examples of people being condescending to minorities on issues that concern them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 18:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "splaining" really a term that is in currency too? If so, I support a move too. But I've never heard "splaining" as a stand-alone term, outside of it being short for "explaining"; like the way people say "telly" instead of "television" or whatever. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

this thread from 2012 suggests that privilege could be a good target too. Bicycle^wheel 20:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So you are proposing that we cut down this article and reduce to a section about "splaining" minority issues while being blind to your privilege.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That could work. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Would the "keep"ers be happy with splaining? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on the way Petey Plane and Gerard describe it above; yes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I support this. It lets us expand the article as well. --Ymir (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, editors should be expected to have produced a document to RationalWiki moderators or board members which demonstrate sufficiently their female gender/sex proper. Surely, people without such documentation should refrain from mansplaining in the splaining article. Likewise, sections about whitesplaining shall only ever be edited by people of colour proper. This should be true for all axes of oppression in this scientific rigorous, mathematically proven Matrix of Domination. Let's try to make this article scientifically accurate and complete, and add all intersectional categories described by experts in the field who totally agree that there are 3—14 intersectional categories (depending on who you ask, naturally). These categories are: (1) race (2) sex and (3) class as the Triple Oppression model, which is outdated, plus potentially (4) gender, (5) health, (6) religous/secular, (7) ethnicity , (8) culture, (9) nationality, (10) location west or rest, (11) age , (12) settled/nomad, (13) society status primitive/developed, (14) possessions. If you doubt the solidity of this rigorous work, please read Social Justice where you learn about levels of analysis, which is Science proper. The levels of analysis in this case follow the Collect-Underpants—Questionmark—Profit model of research. I personally have no plans to send documents to anyone, but I genuinely look forward to this article. I'm sure it can get a Gold Status soon, and be recommended to others along other science articles, like e.g. Evolution. ~ Aneris ✻ 04:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the criticisms against the term are as missional as the term itself is. And clearly, much can be said against it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the articles are critical in any important way, and many here are fully into Intersectionality, too, as the foremost ideology within American Secularism (actually, it's Critical Race Theory, which contains Intersectionality as one key element). I might add, I only found references to fourteen axes at most, but that model did not mention (15) cis/trans, which is obviously a thing for social justice warriors, too. And there's yet another one that comes up frequently, (16) neurotypical/neurodivergent. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

CRT includes intersec

Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

e.g.
*http://www.odec.umd.edu/CD/RACE/CRT.PDF
*also see Kimberlé Crenshaw
~ Aneris ✻ 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)