WTF is mansplaining?

the_pen_turner

cloudatlas wrote: »

'There is one EU regulatory test that requires what is called a 5th-percentile female dummy, which is meant to represent the female population. Only 5% of women will be shorter than this dummy. But there are a number of data gaps. For a start, this dummy is only tested in the passenger seat, so we have no data at all for how a female driver would be affected – something of an issue you would think, given women’s “out of position” driving style. And secondly, this female dummy is not really female. It is just a scaled-down male dummy'.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes

fair enough , (or not in this case). why is this

jam_mac_jam

the_pen_turner wrote: »

fair enough , (or not in this case). why is this

It probably is just laziness. Just thinking of women as small men instead of a different thing entirely. Men are seen as a default.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Seatbelts and cars are designed for men. As a five foot three woman i can tell you you notice it. More women die in car crashes because crash test dummies are men. So yes there are things that are designed as the default for men.

How would you test for women as opposed to men, going back 40-50 years, since the technology wasn't available? And more men die in car crashes.. because test dummies aren't made to represent all body types?

And I can honestly, say that seat belts were designed for someone with a very different height/body shape than mine, as were car seats.

I am not sure why anyone is so defensive about this. It doesn't mean men are bad or that there is a big conspiracy against women but taking men as the default has side effects on women's lives.

The tone. Context. The OP led the way and set the tone. If this was simply a discussion about seat belts and/or the safety testing, there wouldn't be any "defensive" feeling... but when the claim is made to reinforce a perception of discrimination... yeah.. it's worth opposing.

jam_mac_jam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How would you test for women as opposed to men, going back 40-50 years, since the technology wasn't available? And more men die in car crashes.. because test dummies aren't made to represent all body types?

And I can honestly, say that seat belts were designed for someone with a very different height/body shape than mine, as were car seats.



The tone. Context. The OP led the way and set the tone. If this was simply a discussion about seat belts and/or the safety testing, there wouldn't be any "defensive" feeling... but when the claim is made to reinforce a perception of discrimination... yeah.. it's worth opposing.

No I am arguing its from discrimination. It's not.

It's more as you say more men drove so they designed for men. But taking men as the default does have impacts on people's lives.

However the defensiveness is immediately denying that it happens or that things are designed around men.

They are, not out of discrimination but just history and laziness. Same with medical research, more studies are done on men as it's easier.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No I am arguing its from discrimination. It's not.

Grand. I'm fine leaving it at that, then.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Do you have any sources for these two points?

I want to report offending companies.

Well? We're waiting.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

As promised.

HER wrote:

Leo and Martin could learn a thing or two. Female leaders once again doing wonderful with covid control. Well done.

ME wrote:

NZ is an easier country to contol covid. It's several times the size of Ireland and would probably stretch from here to Sicily, divided in two main islands with the same population of Ireland (roughly).

There are no open borders.

They don't have the equivalent of the EU with free movement.

Their nearest neighbour is a 3 hour flight away.

You can't compare Ireland (or the EU as a whole) to NZ.

HER wrote:

I didn't compare New Zealand to anywhere. Thanks for mansplaining where New Zealand lies geographically, lucky you're here, wouldn't have known otherwise
And make no mistake, no country "is an easy country to control covid".

ME wrote:

mansplaining?

Arden is nothing special. She leads the government and isn't the sole director of legislation. They have other hamsters turning wheels too. NZ is not a dictatorship.

Lots of countries and territories have similar levels of control. Female leaders are better, aye?
Look at Foster and O'Neil.

Most Kiwis would not agree, Her status as a humanitarian is not translating into better lives for Kiwis. Maori People have been let down. Child poverty, Mental Health and housing huge problems there, less than 300 houses built PA 4 times that needed. Services for alcohol and drug services poor etc etc etc.

HER wrote:

what is your point?? "she leads the government"?? Are you explaining what the role of a prime minister is to me now?? I'm baffled by your additional "lots of countries already have control"! WHAT IS YOUR POINT?? No actually, scratch that, I don't want to know.

ME wrote:

You said she's a good pm because of c19 numbers !! I gave a counter argument .

Can we not have a discussion without personal insults?

HER wrote:

There's no counter argument here, just a lot of mansplaining nonsense. I'm off. Have a good weekend.

ME wrote:

I gave my opinion backed up with factual and logical reasoning. Christ.

No need to get your knickers in a twist.

HER wrote:

You are aggressive and condescending like most men. You are a vile misogynist because you are making sweeping statements about women. You are undermining a woman pm and undermining the opinion of a woman. A classic misogynist.

You are probably an incel. Speccy fuck.(Sic)

The last bastion of someone losing an argument is to resort to personal insults.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

gogo wrote: »

Two sides to every argument, post the exact convo and let’s us make an informed decision.

There is such a thing as mansplaining, I work in a male dominated environment for years, it absolutely exists.
Not everyone, not all the time but it’s deffo a thing.

As for your convo, no idea... hard to tell from one side of the story

Your wish is my command.

.anon.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

The last bastion of someone losing an argument is to resort to personal insults.

Do you wear glasses though?

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

FB really is a cesspool.

It's interesting. You have (almost) complete anonymity on this thing and there's still more decorum than FB.

In fairness, you both sound like dicks. Though she did wish you a good weekend. So there's that.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

sounds like she had the painters in

cloudatlas

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It probably is just laziness. Just thinking of women as small men instead of a different thing entirely. Men are seen as a default.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200812161318.htm

'Women are more likely than men to suffer adverse side effects of medications because drug dosages have historically been based on clinical trials conducted on men, suggests new research'.

Is exclusion not a form of discrimination?

Rodney Bathgate

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

As promised.

The last bastion of someone losing an argument is to resort to personal insults.

Do you wear glasses?

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness, you both sound like dicks. Though she did wish you a good weekend. So there's that.

How do I sound like a dick? Pray tell.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Do you wear glasses?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In fairness, you both sound like dicks. Though she did wish you a good weekend. So there's that.

Yes. Why?

~Rebel~

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

As promised.


The last bastion of someone losing an argument is to resort to personal insults.

Honestly, given that her original point was purely about the control and containment of Covid, it doesn’t read particularly well that you segue off very quickly into other issues with the indigenous population. Even the covid comments you make seem a bit pointless - yeah, the circumstances are different, but she still did an exemplary job, and dealt better with her circumstances than our lads did with theirs.

Right from the beginning it feels like you’re starting an argument just to start an argument.

She doesn’t come across at all well in her replies either.

If I saw this conversation on my feed I’d probably throw both people on mute to be honest..

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've posted a hypothetical situation on boards before, that mansplains the myth.... the let me see if I can dig it out.

Here we go, partial quote of previous post:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What exists is more of an earnings gap than a pay gap. Men, as a group, earn more than women.

This doesn’t mean there is some inherent bias where women are paid less than their male colleagues who are carrying out the same work. It just means a lot of engineers are male and a lot of nurses are female.***

You might question why that is the case, but usually articles on the matter go nowhere near addressing such an issue. There was a study last year by the women’s institute that calculated the actual pay gap to be closer to 4% or something like that

Here’s a scenario:
Imagine a company of 200 people. 50 male scientists and 50 female scientists, each earing €100k. The rest of the staff is made up of ancillary work like cleaners, security guards, receptionists, typists etc. By some quirk, every one of those people is paid exactly the same, say €30k, regardless of job, religion or sex.

This is the very definition of an equal pay workforce. All men and women are paid the same as their colleagues doing the same job, whether they are scientists or cleaners.

If the ancillary staff are made up of 20 men and 80 women though, this skews the reading of the statistics. All of a sudden, the men in that company earn an average of €80k per year while the women only take home an average that is less than €57k.

40% Paygap, outta nowhere.

The irony is that to correct this imbalance, the correct thing to do would be to fire 30 women and hire the same number of men in their place.

How’s that for equality?


***Overly simplistic and flawed, but you get what I mean

To the poster asking for the backup to the 14% figure, don't bother. It's based off average earnings and doesn't factor in anything that skews the data. I mean, does anybody think that women who work for Aer Lingus are paid as much, on average, as the men who work for Aer Lingus?

Do you think that they should be paid the same, regardless of whether they are in charge of the personal safety of the entire aircraft or if they are in charge of asking whether you want chicken or fish?

I’m exaggerating to hammer home the point here, but this is the basis of an earnings gap.

Instead of examining why more women apply to be cabin crew or encouraging them to become pilots, though, the usual suspects are screaming "inequality" while they are wildly misrepresentating or misunderstanding the facts.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/dublin-bus-releases-encouraging-data-on-gender-pay-gap-1.4067202?mode=amp

An article from that other thread. Women at Dublin bus earn 6% more than men, on average. However, men do the sh1tt1er jobs, including almost all of the bus driver jobs, which attract shift allowance, overtime etc. So, men are paid less but end up earning more because they work longer hours and work irregular hours. Imagine your coworker demanding to be paid the same as you when you do longer shifts and do all the poxy jobs?

Using averages is stupid. Comparing earnings to pay scales and seeing inequality that doesn't exist is even more stupid. Note that the headline suggests that the fact that women are paid more is "encouraging".

99nsr125

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seatbelts apparently.

Me bollockş

How exactly is a seat belt designed for a man

~Rebel~

99nsr125 wrote: »

Me bollockş

How exactly is a seat belt designed for a man

This is quite an interesting article I read a few months back - now obviously they're pushing a specific message, so it's worth adding a pinch of salt, but some quite interesting information none-the-less.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes

The bare bones of the broader argument are that since it often turns out that most of those in the labs developing a lot of this stuff at the earliest stages are men, you end up with a skewed perspective, and get some blindspots right back at the initial conception stage. Some of these get rectified over time with testing etc, but not always. The solution being the same solution to most things with a broad market really - the more variance in the perspectives you get at early development stages, the sooner you find something that works well for a broader market, and the better the thing is.




For car-safety more specifically;
"Men are more likely than women to be involved in a car crash, which means they dominate the numbers of those seriously injured in them. But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured.... She is also 17% more likely to die. And it’s all to do with how the car is designed – and for whom.

Women tend to sit further forward when driving. This is because we are on average shorter. Our legs need to be closer to reach the pedals, and we need to sit more upright to see clearly over the dashboard. This is not, however, the “standard seating position”, researchers have noted. Women are “out of position” drivers. And our wilful deviation from the norm means that we are at greater risk of internal injury on frontal collisions. The angle of our knees and hips as our shorter legs reach for the pedals also makes our legs more vulnerable. Essentially, we’re doing it all wrong....

Women are also at higher risk in rear-end collisions. We have less muscle on our necks and upper torso, which make us more vulnerable to whiplash (by up to three times), and car design has amplified this vulnerability. Swedish research has shown that modern seats are too firm to protect women against whiplash injuries: the seats throw women forward faster than men because the back of the seat doesn’t give way for women’s on average lighter bodies. The reason this has been allowed to happen is very simple: cars have been designed using car crash-test dummies based on the “average” male."




It goes on a lot more after that, but there's no point in pasting the whole thing. As I said though, quite informative and interesting.

Chris_Heilong

WTF is mansplaining?

It is not real, it is just another feminist buzzword to help in their crusade to prove to the world they are being oppressed.

99nsr125

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This is quite an interesting article I read a few months back - now obviously they're pushing a specific message, so it's worth adding a pinch of salt, but some quite interesting information none-the-less.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes

The bare bones of the broader argument are that since it often turns out that most of those in the labs developing a lot of this stuff at the earliest stages are men, you end up with a skewed perspective, and get some blindspots right back at the initial conception stage. Some of these get rectified over time with testing etc, but not always. The solution being the same solution to most things with a broad market really - the more variance in the perspectives you get at early development stages, the sooner you find something that works well for a broader market, and the better the thing is.




For car-safety more specifically;
"Men are more likely than women to be involved in a car crash, which means they dominate the numbers of those seriously injured in them. But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured.... She is also 17% more likely to die. And it’s all to do with how the car is designed – and for whom.

Women tend to sit further forward when driving. This is because we are on average shorter. Our legs need to be closer to reach the pedals, and we need to sit more upright to see clearly over the dashboard. This is not, however, the “standard seating position”, researchers have noted. Women are “out of position” drivers. And our wilful deviation from the norm means that we are at greater risk of internal injury on frontal collisions. The angle of our knees and hips as our shorter legs reach for the pedals also makes our legs more vulnerable. Essentially, we’re doing it all wrong....

Women are also at higher risk in rear-end collisions. We have less muscle on our necks and upper torso, which make us more vulnerable to whiplash (by up to three times), and car design has amplified this vulnerability. Swedish research has shown that modern seats are too firm to protect women against whiplash injuries: the seats throw women forward faster than men because the back of the seat doesn’t give way for women’s on average lighter bodies. The reason this has been allowed to happen is very simple: cars have been designed using car crash-test dummies based on the “average” male."




It goes on a lot more after that, but there's no point in pasting the whole thing. As I said though, quite informative and interesting.

Hang on more men die and are injured and you want to bias toward women fųck off,

Kaybaykwah

Mansplaining is a really dumb term, but on par with it is "libtard".

Very quickly jostle together two words incongruously paired that make sense, if and only if, you have a dumb agenda.

M.T. Cranium

It's any use of logic (he mansplained).

Pherekydes

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

It's any use of logic (he mansplained).

So women who use logic are mansplaining?

Rodney Bathgate

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Yes. Why?

At least the ‘speccy’ part is right then, even if the rest is buzzword bull crap. She sounds like a nutjob, best ignored.

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

So women who use logic are mansplaining?

no, because double standards are the new normal. Only men can be sexist. only men can mansplain. Or manspread. or Toxic masculinity, but no acknowledgement of toxic femininity, etc.

It's all sexist BS, because it gives women a free pass in everything they say or do.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

I thought gender was a social construct now. So how can "mansplaining" exist?

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

At least the ‘speccy’ part is right then, even if the rest is buzzword bull crap. She sounds like a nutjob, best ignored.

Why do you feel it is socially acceptable to mock someone over their physical traits (or to use words that are insults), especially when wearing glasses is something over which the OP has no control?

Would the same questions be asked of the OP if the roles were reversed, and it was a woman who was mocked over her physical appearance, and called a fat cnut........notwithstanding the fact that weight is something over which she has control?

Be truthful now, would you ask a woman if she was fat and then turn around afterwards and say "at least the fat part is right"? Spoiler alert:

would you fcuk