Yeah, but missing the point is sort of the point at this point.brick wrote:No. Men do not mansplain to one another and women do not mansplain to anyone. Those are examples of garden variety condescension. Mansplaining is a very specific subset of condescension. Conflating the two and talking about them as though they are the same thing utterly misses the point.
Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10334
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 976
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:52 pm
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
I will not speak for Mr Kramer, but I will say that the title of this thread may be an example of unintentional irony.brick wrote:I have to ask. Is your use of the word 'hysterical' intentional irony?
- opusthepenguin
- The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
- Posts: 10334
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
- Location: Shawnee, KS
- Contact:
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
I believe "tragic irony" is the technical literary term.mahatma wrote:I will not speak for Mr Kramer, but I will say that the title of this thread may be an example of unintentional irony.brick wrote:I have to ask. Is your use of the word 'hysterical' intentional irony?
- TheSunWillComeOut
- Two-Morrow
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:12 pm
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Agreed. I'm not fond of the word either, but there is definitely a kind of behavior that I would classify as "mansplaining" that I run into with some frequency. And that behavior is not always meant to be negative or insulting on the speaker's end, even though I dislike it in all forms.brick wrote:No. Men do not mansplain to one another and women do not mansplain to anyone. Those are examples of garden variety condescension. Mansplaining is a very specific subset of condescension. Conflating the two and talking about them as though they are the same thing utterly misses the point.
Example: Whenever I've encountered another Rush fan trying to "teach me" fun facts about a band with which I'm so obsessed that I made Alex Trebek touch their drumsticks on national television, it's ALWAYS a man. Yes, I've seen that funny behind-the-scenes video, I spend as much time typing "Rush" into YouTube as you do. Yes, I've heard that anecdote before because Alex Lifeson has mentioned it in at least 20 interviews and I've read them all. Yes, I am aware that the members of Rush were very inspired by a band called King Crimson, whom I paid $100 to see in concert last year. Fellow women fans don't attempt to test the parameters of my fandom so they can "help out" by filling in the gaps, they just share their own stories and ask about mine.
I don't believe this is some inherent male-female brain divide - that would be ridiculous. I'm sure there are many cultural factors that go into this phenomenon, boys and girls being taught different conversational patterns and goals from childhood onward, which I'm not enough of an amateur sociologist to try to dissect on a Saturday morning. But it does exist, and it can impact women's ability to actively participate in and contribute to public discourse.
I don't know if you've all noticed this, but most of the women who were previously posting have already cleared out of this thread while the remaining male posters continue to spend days arguing the exact nature of what women experience and why. I'm not saying this to shame anyone - there are posters here who are making excellent and important points. But as a woman, it is a bit... ah, interesting... that this thread has turned into pages and pages of men debating whether or not men are likelier than women to lecture others on a subject with which the listener has equal or more experience. You're essentially engaging with each other on what women experience while the remaining (EDIT BECAUSE I CORRECTLY PLURALIZED US AT THE START OF THIS PARAGRAPH BUT NOT HERE) women here are essentially talking to the wind (but the wind cannot hear).
Last edited by TheSunWillComeOut on Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Describing this argument would be an example of the "correct" usage of another terrible term - begging the question. (I prefer "circular argument".)brick wrote:No. Men do not mansplain to one another and women do not mansplain to anyone. Those are examples of garden variety condescension. Mansplaining is a very specific subset of condescension. Conflating the two and talking about them as though they are the same thing utterly misses the point.
- dhkendall
- Pursuing the Dream
- Posts: 8789
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
- Contact:
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
I am thinking of a few months ago (seems like only a few weeks ago) when, coming home from my J! audition in Kansaa City we stopped in SiouxFalls, SD for the night and got together with fellow boardie MinnesotaMyron (Myron Meyer). Over dinner I was talking about the Archive and explaining some things about how it works and how games are entered. His response reminded me that oh yeah, he's an Archivist too! I forgot! (So I suppose I was "mansplaining" the Archive to another man.JyV92 wrote:Fwiw, men. "mansplain" to other men all the time. the example is that a man meets a woman at a party, the subject of physics comes up. And the man, an amateur of science, starts to explain something to the woman about physics. He hasn't bothered to ask her if she knows anything about the field, and in our case, she's a professional physicist with a federally funded lab at a major research institution.
But two guys may go through the same thing. But when the assumption on the part of the mansplainer is pointed out, it doesn't reinforce a cultural assumption that the other fellow didn't know as much about physics. In the mixed gender discussion, the assumption is reinforced by sexist assumptions. So there you go. My two cents.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
Follow my progress game by game since 2012
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
Follow my progress game by game since 2012
- TheSunWillComeOut
- Two-Morrow
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:12 pm
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
I wouldn't call that "mansplaining" at all - that's a quirkier phenomenon I've run into myself, where the human brain is wired to see "brand-new acquaintance" the first time you meet an online friend in meatspace, and so it takes a while for you to sort of download the text-based personal association into that particular human shell.dhkendall wrote:I am thinking of a few months ago (seems like only a few weeks ago) when, coming home from my J! audition in Kansaa City we stopped in SiouxFalls, SD for the night and got together with fellow boardie MinnesotaMyron (Myron Meyer). Over dinner I was talking about the Archive and explaining some things about how it works and how games are entered. His response reminded me that oh yeah, he's an Archivist too! I forgot! (So I suppose I was "mansplaining" the Archive to another man.JyV92 wrote:Fwiw, men. "mansplain" to other men all the time. the example is that a man meets a woman at a party, the subject of physics comes up. And the man, an amateur of science, starts to explain something to the woman about physics. He hasn't bothered to ask her if she knows anything about the field, and in our case, she's a professional physicist with a federally funded lab at a major research institution.
But two guys may go through the same thing. But when the assumption on the part of the mansplainer is pointed out, it doesn't reinforce a cultural assumption that the other fellow didn't know as much about physics. In the mixed gender discussion, the assumption is reinforced by sexist assumptions. So there you go. My two cents.
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
I believe all Rush fans should be forgiven for their transgressions, as they are already punished (even though they are unaware of it) by a lifetime of listening to Rush.TheSunWillComeOut wrote:Agreed. I'm not fond of the word either, but there is definitely a kind of behavior that I would classify as "mansplaining" that I run into with some frequency. And that behavior is not always meant to be negative or insulting on the speaker's end, even though I dislike it in all forms.brick wrote:No. Men do not mansplain to one another and women do not mansplain to anyone. Those are examples of garden variety condescension. Mansplaining is a very specific subset of condescension. Conflating the two and talking about them as though they are the same thing utterly misses the point.
Example: Whenever I've encountered another Rush fan trying to "teach me" fun facts about a band with which I'm so obsessed that I made Alex Trebek touch their drumsticks on national television, it's ALWAYS a man. Yes, I've seen that funny behind-the-scenes video, I spend as much time typing "Rush" into YouTube as you do. Yes, I've heard that anecdote before because Alex Lifeson has mentioned it in at least 20 interviews and I've read them all. Yes, I am aware that the members of Rush were very inspired by a band called King Crimson, whom I paid $100 to see in concert last year. Fellow women fans don't attempt to test the parameters of my fandom so they can "help out" by filling in the gaps, they just share their own stories and ask about mine.
I don't believe this is some inherent male-female brain divide - that would be ridiculous.
In your particular example, it could be - or rather, it could be an indirect consequence of one. Because obsessive fandom is one area where I am totally willing to accept that men are at least 100 times as likely to talk like that to women than women to men. And here is why. Men are more likely to develop an obsessive focus on one subject. (Band fandom is a benign form of obsessive focus; for an example of a more pathological/harmful form, well, how many female Zach Horans have you heard of?) This statistical fact (no, I am not going to look for references to back it up; if you don't think it's obvious, we are unlikely to have a productive discussion anyway) leads to the (usually... but see next sentence) practically useful stereotypical reasoning and assumption that the female interlocutor is a less obsessive fan. Of course, it is not practically useful in this case, because it leads to lose/lose consequences: if it is correct, the male fan would do better not to demonstrate the full extent of his obsession and bore the interlocutor (reduced to a passive listener) to death, and if it is incorrect, he will insult the listener and look foolish in her eyes. But did I mention that obsessive fandom often accompanies poor social skills? And that correlation may (though that's less clear) be stronger in males.
I'm sure there are many cultural factors that go into this phenomenon, boys and girls being taught different conversational patterns and goals from childhood onward, which I'm not enough of an amateur sociologist to try to dissect on a Saturday morning. But it does exist, and it can impact women's ability to actively participate in and contribute to public discourse.
That's a real phenomenon, for sure. Its existence and statistical prevalence does not seem to be controversial among the participants in this discussion. And, due to statistical differences, it may be practically useful stereotyping to assume that a man is more likely to engage in such behavior than a woman. Because it is statistically true. But this is the thing: while stereotyping is often practically useful, it is not appropriate in judging an individual, and it is not appropriate (or not constructive in any case) to reduce the individual's motives to such stereotypes. Because it's doing essentially the same undesirable thing to that individual that the individual was doing in the first place.
Now I'm in no way a fan of the "turn the other cheek" approach. I am all for putting people down when they are jerks. But using group-based labels is a bad way to do that, because it insults not just the justified target, but also all the members of the group. That's a lot of collateral damage.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it's hard not to conclude, by mere counting of posts and words, that I am among the top 4 or so people addressed in this paragraph, so I'll respond as if it was directed at me. (Hopefully all of it, including the second sentence, so I'm not taking is as hostile, and anyway I'd have to forgive you because you are a Rush fan...) Maybe women have better and/or more important things to do. Objectively, message board discussions are a colossal waste of time. But they are also a fun intellectual exercise, not too unlike solving a crossword puzzle or playing chess. Then again, I think many people would say that my last sentence is not a very normal thing to say. Is this another of those not-so-normal obsessions that men are more likely to engage in? I don't know. I don't think I like these discussions because I am a man, and some of the toughest debaters I know are women, but statistically you are right about this discussion and almost any other internet discussion - there are more men. Statistically.I don't know if you've all noticed this, but most of the women who were previously posting have already cleared out of this thread while the remaining male posters continue to spend days arguing the exact nature of what women experience and why. I'm not saying this to shame anyone - there are posters here who are making excellent and important points. But as a woman, it is a bit... ah, interesting... that this thread has turned into pages and pages of men debating whether or not men are likelier than women to lecture others on a subject with which the listener has equal or more experience. You're essentially engaging with each other on what women experience while the remaining woman here talks to the wind (but the wind cannot hear).
But I do have an objection to the substance of what you said. Do you really mean that "the remaining male posters continue to spend days arguing the exact nature of what women experience and why"? Because I don't think any male (except maybe Vanya a while ago, but even he hasn't persisted in that) is arguing about what women experience. Except to the extent that many arguments advanced in the discussion have implied that one should not make broad assumptions about what people of other gender - and, really, people of other identity - experience. One can only reliably talk about one's own experiences. But one can think about reasons why things happen to other people and why other people do things. I, for one, don't care what gender the person is that I am arguing with - actually, if that becomes relevant, it means that the argument is getting too personal.
- Rex Kramer
- Jeopardy! TOCer
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
It's intentional something. I myself can't decide if it's illustration, irony, or satire. Maybe it's all three.brick wrote:I have to ask. Is your use of the word 'hysterical' intentional irony?
Rex
- Rex Kramer
- Jeopardy! TOCer
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Finally, something we can agree on.gnash wrote:Objectively, message board discussions are a colossal waste of time. But they are also a fun intellectual exercise, not too unlike solving a crossword puzzle or playing chess.
Rex
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 976
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:52 pm
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
I will respectfully disagree with Gnash vis a vis Rush, but also know that Gnash's opinion is not uncommon.
Re Ms Morrow's experience as a Rush fan, I will say that I have experienced almost the exact same thing as, for example, a straight white male Ani DiFranco fan. I've always tried to receive such condescension in the most generous possible way. One never does know how exactly how to behave when encountering a unicorn in the wild.
As I stated upthread, though, I do have a certain luxury in this attitude. I haven't experienced a lifetime of assumed incompetence based on my gender or skin color. My haircut or clothing, maybe, but those are choices, not inherent characteristics.
Re Ms Morrow's experience as a Rush fan, I will say that I have experienced almost the exact same thing as, for example, a straight white male Ani DiFranco fan. I've always tried to receive such condescension in the most generous possible way. One never does know how exactly how to behave when encountering a unicorn in the wild.
As I stated upthread, though, I do have a certain luxury in this attitude. I haven't experienced a lifetime of assumed incompetence based on my gender or skin color. My haircut or clothing, maybe, but those are choices, not inherent characteristics.
- Rex Kramer
- Jeopardy! TOCer
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
I believe it was Louise Armstrong who said, "If you have to ask what mansplaining is, you'll never know."gnash wrote:Describing this argument would be an example of the "correct" usage of another terrible term - begging the question. (I prefer "circular argument".)brick wrote:No. Men do not mansplain to one another and women do not mansplain to anyone. Those are examples of garden variety condescension. Mansplaining is a very specific subset of condescension. Conflating the two and talking about them as though they are the same thing utterly misses the point.
Rex
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 976
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:52 pm
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
That's hysterical.Rex Kramer wrote:I believe it was Louise Armstrong who said, "If you have to ask what mansplaining is, you'll never know."
Rex
- Rex Kramer
- Jeopardy! TOCer
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Dr. J, no one on this Board, especially myself, wants to see fewer posts from you just so they can see more posts from me. But thank you.Dr. J wrote:(P.S. Rex, can I hire you to write my posts?)
Rex
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
I am getting Dizzy. And I have Miles to go.Rex Kramer wrote:I believe it was Louise Armstrong who said, "If you have to ask what mansplaining is, you'll never know."gnash wrote:Describing this argument would be an example of the "correct" usage of another terrible term - begging the question. (I prefer "circular argument".)brick wrote:No. Men do not mansplain to one another and women do not mansplain to anyone. Those are examples of garden variety condescension. Mansplaining is a very specific subset of condescension. Conflating the two and talking about them as though they are the same thing utterly misses the point.
Rex
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1244
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:03 pm
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Only if you want to insist that because you have never noticed it, because you don't care for the term, and most importantly it doesn't affect you so you are free to ignore it, that there is no such thing as mansplaining. Which does seem to be your tack. To reach that position you have to be willing to ignore the first person accounts of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of women. I'm starting to feel like Madge the Manicurist from the old Palmolive commercials. "Mansplaining! You're soaking in it!"gnash wrote:Describing this argument would be an example of the "correct" usage of another terrible term - begging the question. (I prefer "circular argument".)brick wrote:No. Men do not mansplain to one another and women do not mansplain to anyone. Those are examples of garden variety condescension. Mansplaining is a very specific subset of condescension. Conflating the two and talking about them as though they are the same thing utterly misses the point.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:58 pm
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Management should check the ip numbers to see if ZH has multiple accounts here
- econgator
- Let's Go Mets!
- Posts: 10689
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Pretty sure that's already been thought of ........hdayejr wrote:Management should check the ip numbers to see if ZH has multiple accounts here
-
- Jeopardy! UTOCer
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:06 pm
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
Yes. I believe the difference is the condescension in a male-female interaction reinforces sexist assumptions.
OR in that interaction, there can be a perception on the part of the female of sexist assumptions - usually well-founded.
OR in that interaction, there can be a perception on the part of the female of sexist assumptions - usually well-founded.
- alietr
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9006
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
- Location: Bethesda, MD
Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned
This is just too relevant to leave out: