Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Providing an outlet and a voice for music lovers to unite under the common theme of music for all. Join The Pondo Army to show your allegiance to musical freedom! Fighting for no censorship of the arts & music education in schools, The Pondo Army will triumph! The Pondo Army Movement
Follow me on twitter@Pondoknowsbest
I'm reading the board by bookmarks and recent threads now. My bookmarks always says I have 2 new posts to read when none of them are marked new. Anyone know what's up with that?
Something similar happened to me with PMs. Turned out a PM to one certain person was screwed up. As soon as we resumed the conversation the notification went away. Maybe posting something in some threads you posted in around the time you noticed the notifications will clear it up.
I have mixed feelings about the term "mansplaining". Whenever I've researched it, it seems like it mostly comes down to "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman". Okay, I'm with you, that's shitty. But the implication seems to be "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman, it's because she's a woman". That's obviously shitty too - even more so. And we should absolutely try to stop that from happening and enlighten men to their unconscious sexist biases and the way they manifest themselves. But isn't it also pretty condescending to assume that you know the reasons why someone is saying something more than they do? I know that the fact that I'm a guy means that my viewpoint comes with implicit bias and I try to be cognizant of that, but I also think dialogue is important. Many times I've seen accusations of mansplaining shut down what otherwise could potentially be productive conversations. Sometimes I think it's definitely warranted - like when a guy acts like he knows more about childbirth than a mother of three or other situations where women's experiences are invalidated - but I've seen it used to shut down men's viewpoints entirely, which I don't find helpful. Overall I just find the term more divisive than anything, and its wide application to not be particularly useful to getting men to actually understand and respect women's viewpoints, which I think is the whole point. If there's sexism inherent to my viewpoint I'll try to see it and own up to it - but this is one of the things I've seen many feminists (something I consider myself to be) rally around, but have never really gotten on board with it.
5.5/four tet, daphni b2b floating points, avalon emerson 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.21/serpentwithfeet 5.25/hozier 6.12-16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 6.29/goose 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.27-29/making time 10.17/air
I have mixed feelings about the term "mansplaining". Whenever I've researched it, it seems like it mostly comes down to "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman". Okay, I'm with you, that's shitty. But the implication seems to be "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman, it's because she's a woman". That's obviously shitty too - even more so. And we should absolutely try to stop that from happening and enlighten men to their unconscious sexist biases and the way they manifest themselves. But isn't it also pretty condescending to assume that you know the reasons why someone is saying something more than they do? I know that the fact that I'm a guy means that my viewpoint comes with implicit bias and I try to be cognizant of that, but I also think dialogue is important. Many times I've seen accusations of mansplaining shut down what otherwise could potentially be productive conversations. Sometimes I think it's definitely warranted - like when a guy acts like he knows more about childbirth than a mother of three or other situations where women's experiences are invalidated - but I've seen it used to shut down men's viewpoints entirely, which I don't find helpful. Overall I just find the term more divisive than anything, and its wide application to not be particularly useful to getting men to actually understand and respect women's viewpoints, which I think is the whole point. If there's sexism inherent to my viewpoint I'll try to see it and own up to it - but this is one of the things I've seen many feminists (something I consider myself to be) rally around, but have never really gotten on board with it.
I have thoughts on this but won't have the time to type them out for a minute.
I have mixed feelings about the term "mansplaining". Whenever I've researched it, it seems like it mostly comes down to "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman". Okay, I'm with you, that's shitty. But the implication seems to be "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman, it's because she's a woman". That's obviously shitty too - even more so. And we should absolutely try to stop that from happening and enlighten men to their unconscious sexist biases and the way they manifest themselves. But isn't it also pretty condescending to assume that you know the reasons why someone is saying something more than they do? I know that the fact that I'm a guy means that my viewpoint comes with implicit bias and I try to be cognizant of that, but I also think dialogue is important. Many times I've seen accusations of mansplaining shut down what otherwise could potentially be productive conversations. Sometimes I think it's definitely warranted - like when a guy acts like he knows more about childbirth than a mother of three or other situations where women's experiences are invalidated - but I've seen it used to shut down men's viewpoints entirely, which I don't find helpful. Overall I just find the term more divisive than anything, and its wide application to not be particularly useful to getting men to actually understand and respect women's viewpoints, which I think is the whole point. If there's sexism inherent to my viewpoint I'll try to see it and own up to it - but this is one of the things I've seen many feminists (something I consider myself to be) rally around, but have never really gotten on board with it.
On the flip... there are MANY women who condescendingly explain things to a man just because he's a man as well. Both are wrong if gender is the only reason behind it. (I would agree that as a mother of two, I would know a thing or two more than most men in that area, but there are men in the OB field who know more than I do).
I have mixed feelings about the term "mansplaining". Whenever I've researched it, it seems like it mostly comes down to "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman". Okay, I'm with you, that's shitty. But the implication seems to be "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman, it's because she's a woman". That's obviously shitty too - even more so. And we should absolutely try to stop that from happening and enlighten men to their unconscious sexist biases and the way they manifest themselves. But isn't it also pretty condescending to assume that you know the reasons why someone is saying something more than they do? I know that the fact that I'm a guy means that my viewpoint comes with implicit bias and I try to be cognizant of that, but I also think dialogue is important. Many times I've seen accusations of mansplaining shut down what otherwise could potentially be productive conversations. Sometimes I think it's definitely warranted - like when a guy acts like he knows more about childbirth than a mother of three or other situations where women's experiences are invalidated - but I've seen it used to shut down men's viewpoints entirely, which I don't find helpful. Overall I just find the term more divisive than anything, and its wide application to not be particularly useful to getting men to actually understand and respect women's viewpoints, which I think is the whole point. If there's sexism inherent to my viewpoint I'll try to see it and own up to it - but this is one of the things I've seen many feminists (something I consider myself to be) rally around, but have never really gotten on board with it.
There's a lot going on in this post. I will try to organize thoughts as best I can.
1) I think, at its core, the issue comes down to who gets to interpret what is going on in a conversation. People interpret all aspects of a conversation based off a vast array of life experiences. It is completely possible for you to not have any sexist motivation whatsoever in what you say while at the same time the other party in the conversation interprets what you say as having sexist motivations. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive and can both be 100% accurate and valid at the same time. From conversations with female counterparts and observations of work experiences, a significant portion of the offense comes from the pattern by which talking down to females ranges from acceptable to encouraged. People have a heightened awareness sensitivity to biases by which they have been judged before. In my not directly comparable (and much much much smaller scale) experiences, I get more irked than I should when people makes cracks about Southern people being uneducated hillbillies or people seem shocked that I have opinion about coworker's haircuts or dress because it falls outside the norm of what men are supposed to enjoy. This point also addresses the difference between your interactions with males and females. You can be just as condescending to male counterparts without getting accused of being inappropriate but that centers around how interactions between males tends to be. I believe (but could be wrong) you and I have spoken in the past re: our tendencies to have more female friends due to a certain level of discomfort with the way men tend to interact. 2) I appreciate your statement about how your viewpoint has the inherent bias to it. It's hard to remember that on a daily or moment to moment basis. It's harder still to take that bias off and see your interactions for what they are sometimes. If you are anything like me, you have had interactions where you thought you were 100% sexism free but have been shown to be wrong either by someone pointing it out or further self-reflection at a later time. For me, this gets further complicated by my goal to be better at such things. I really like to think I am getting this shit down, but I totally mess up at times. It sometimes leads me to blow past issues that have been pointed out because I feel like I have this viewpoint that is sensitive to others in that I avoid saying anything or can totally call out my own stuff because I am so aware. Those ones that get by you suck to admit. 3) On the subject of inherent bias, I think your post touches on a valuable part of the problem. I am cisgender straight white male. I hit the lottery when it comes to not having to experience the short end of the stick of discrimination in society. Due to that, I very much tend to shrink away from any discussions of discrimination because I do not feel I have a place to talk about any of it. Little by little, I am coming around to the idea that I do need to be involved as it's not up to all these groups to have to come to me to tell me how my actions or the actions of others hurts them. So good on you for asking the questions and having the conversations even if they are rough. The more it is talked about, the more people start to be aware of how it is going on. There are going to be times where things get shut down completely and unfairly, and that's just the way things go unfortunately. Some (and I feel more and more) people don't want to converse anymore. They just want to put their viewpoint out there without criticism or rebuttal.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Very well thought out conversation, Jaz and Dave Maynar. I appreciate the narrative and it was enlightening.
really a narrative is more a spoken or written account of connected events, probably easier for you think of it as a story. what Jaz and Dave Maynar had going on was a dialogue, which is when two people take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem.
Very well thought out conversation, Jaz and Dave Maynar. I appreciate the narrative and it was enlightening.
really a narrative is more a spoken or written account of connected events, probably easier for you think of it as a story. what Jaz and Dave Maynar had going on was a dialogue, which is when two people take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem.
I have mixed feelings about the term "mansplaining". Whenever I've researched it, it seems like it mostly comes down to "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman". Okay, I'm with you, that's shitty. But the implication seems to be "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman, it's because she's a woman". That's obviously shitty too - even more so. And we should absolutely try to stop that from happening and enlighten men to their unconscious sexist biases and the way they manifest themselves. But isn't it also pretty condescending to assume that you know the reasons why someone is saying something more than they do? I know that the fact that I'm a guy means that my viewpoint comes with implicit bias and I try to be cognizant of that, but I also think dialogue is important. Many times I've seen accusations of mansplaining shut down what otherwise could potentially be productive conversations. Sometimes I think it's definitely warranted - like when a guy acts like he knows more about childbirth than a mother of three or other situations where women's experiences are invalidated - but I've seen it used to shut down men's viewpoints entirely, which I don't find helpful. Overall I just find the term more divisive than anything, and its wide application to not be particularly useful to getting men to actually understand and respect women's viewpoints, which I think is the whole point. If there's sexism inherent to my viewpoint I'll try to see it and own up to it - but this is one of the things I've seen many feminists (something I consider myself to be) rally around, but have never really gotten on board with it.
There's a lot going on in this post. I will try to organize thoughts as best I can.
1) I think, at its core, the issue comes down to who gets to interpret what is going on in a conversation. People interpret all aspects of a conversation based off a vast array of life experiences. It is completely possible for you to not have any sexist motivation whatsoever in what you say while at the same time the other party in the conversation interprets what you say as having sexist motivations. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive and can both be 100% accurate and valid at the same time. From conversations with female counterparts and observations of work experiences, a significant portion of the offense comes from the pattern by which talking down to females ranges from acceptable to encouraged. People have a heightened awareness sensitivity to biases by which they have been judged before. In my not directly comparable (and much much much smaller scale) experiences, I get more irked than I should when people makes cracks about Southern people being uneducated hillbillies or people seem shocked that I have opinion about coworker's haircuts or dress because it falls outside the norm of what men are supposed to enjoy. This point also addresses the difference between your interactions with males and females. You can be just as condescending to male counterparts without getting accused of being inappropriate but that centers around how interactions between males tends to be. I believe (but could be wrong) you and I have spoken in the past re: our tendencies to have more female friends due to a certain level of discomfort with the way men tend to interact. 2) I appreciate your statement about how your viewpoint has the inherent bias to it. It's hard to remember that on a daily or moment to moment basis. It's harder still to take that bias off and see your interactions for what they are sometimes. If you are anything like me, you have had interactions where you thought you were 100% sexism free but have been shown to be wrong either by someone pointing it out or further self-reflection at a later time. For me, this gets further complicated by my goal to be better at such things. I really like to think I am getting this shit down, but I totally mess up at times. It sometimes leads me to blow past issues that have been pointed out because I feel like I have this viewpoint that is sensitive to others in that I avoid saying anything or can totally call out my own stuff because I am so aware. Those ones that get by you suck to admit. 3) On the subject of inherent bias, I think your post touches on a valuable part of the problem. I am cisgender straight white male. I hit the lottery when it comes to not having to experience the short end of the stick of discrimination in society. Due to that, I very much tend to shrink away from any discussions of discrimination because I do not feel I have a place to talk about any of it. Little by little, I am coming around to the idea that I do need to be involved as it's not up to all these groups to have to come to me to tell me how my actions or the actions of others hurts them. So good on you for asking the questions and having the conversations even if they are rough. The more it is talked about, the more people start to be aware of how it is going on. There are going to be times where things get shut down completely and unfairly, and that's just the way things go unfortunately. Some (and I feel more and more) people don't want to converse anymore. They just want to put their viewpoint out there without criticism or rebuttal.
Also there's a range of being offended about something, and context matters greatly. I feel strangely because I also have times when there's "conflict" because as a black male I'm "mansplaining" (without condescension, but from a different viewpoint) and often times I feel like I get placed in situations where my heritage of being a misplaced feeling minority is utterly discounted. And that because I'm male, all the things that DO negatively effect women, I am told I can never understand - while being basically the only minority in the conversation - while they also get to forget the inherent fear of me that exists on a daily basis. I live in this city, I read people well - I'd like to think - I can tell how often women are just afraid of me more than say a white male who isn't acting like an asshole. I walk too fast, I have the wrong demeanor - but it's just not just that and I as an individual feel marginalized more every time I'm in a conversation that turns into me "mansplaining"
Last Edit: Mar 27, 2017 16:57:48 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Very well thought out conversation, Jaz and Dave Maynar. I appreciate the narrative and it was enlightening.
really a narrative is more a spoken or written account of connected events, probably easier for you think of it as a story. what Jaz and Dave Maynar had going on was a dialogue, which is when two people take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem.
sorry sorry sorry
Hey ya knuckleheads, look what popped up in my little "this day in the life of the crazy cat lady" app.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
really a narrative is more a spoken or written account of connected events, probably easier for you think of it as a story. what Jaz and Dave Maynar had going on was a dialogue, which is when two people take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem.
sorry sorry sorry
Hey ya knuckleheads, look what popped up in my little "this day in the life of the crazy cat lady" app.
this is great! i don't even have that bed anymore.
1) I think, at its core, the issue comes down to who gets to interpret what is going on in a conversation. People interpret all aspects of a conversation based off a vast array of life experiences. It is completely possible for you to not have any sexist motivation whatsoever in what you say while at the same time the other party in the conversation interprets what you say as having sexist motivations. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive and can both be 100% accurate and valid at the same time. From conversations with female counterparts and observations of work experiences, a significant portion of the offense comes from the pattern by which talking down to females ranges from acceptable to encouraged. People have a heightened awareness sensitivity to biases by which they have been judged before. In my not directly comparable (and much much much smaller scale) experiences, I get more irked than I should when people makes cracks about Southern people being uneducated hillbillies or people seem shocked that I have opinion about coworker's haircuts or dress because it falls outside the norm of what men are supposed to enjoy. This point also addresses the difference between your interactions with males and females. You can be just as condescending to male counterparts without getting accused of being inappropriate but that centers around how interactions between males tends to be. I believe (but could be wrong) you and I have spoken in the past re: our tendencies to have more female friends due to a certain level of discomfort with the way men tend to interact. 2) I appreciate your statement about how your viewpoint has the inherent bias to it. It's hard to remember that on a daily or moment to moment basis. It's harder still to take that bias off and see your interactions for what they are sometimes. If you are anything like me, you have had interactions where you thought you were 100% sexism free but have been shown to be wrong either by someone pointing it out or further self-reflection at a later time. For me, this gets further complicated by my goal to be better at such things. I really like to think I am getting this shit down, but I totally mess up at times. It sometimes leads me to blow past issues that have been pointed out because I feel like I have this viewpoint that is sensitive to others in that I avoid saying anything or can totally call out my own stuff because I am so aware. Those ones that get by you suck to admit. 3) On the subject of inherent bias, I think your post touches on a valuable part of the problem. I am cisgender straight white male. I hit the lottery when it comes to not having to experience the short end of the stick of discrimination in society. Due to that, I very much tend to shrink away from any discussions of discrimination because I do not feel I have a place to talk about any of it. Little by little, I am coming around to the idea that I do need to be involved as it's not up to all these groups to have to come to me to tell me how my actions or the actions of others hurts them. So good on you for asking the questions and having the conversations even if they are rough. The more it is talked about, the more people start to be aware of how it is going on. There are going to be times where things get shut down completely and unfairly, and that's just the way things go unfortunately. Some (and I feel more and more) people don't want to converse anymore. They just want to put their viewpoint out there without criticism or rebuttal.
I've always felt really, really, weird as a cis white straight male...who is also disabled. I feel like I have a foot in one word and one in the other, and I never know which one people are going to jump to first.
And people jump to disability more often than you think.
I have mixed feelings about the term "mansplaining". Whenever I've researched it, it seems like it mostly comes down to "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman". Okay, I'm with you, that's shitty. But the implication seems to be "when a man condescendingly explains something to a woman, it's because she's a woman". That's obviously shitty too - even more so. And we should absolutely try to stop that from happening and enlighten men to their unconscious sexist biases and the way they manifest themselves. But isn't it also pretty condescending to assume that you know the reasons why someone is saying something more than they do? I know that the fact that I'm a guy means that my viewpoint comes with implicit bias and I try to be cognizant of that, but I also think dialogue is important. Many times I've seen accusations of mansplaining shut down what otherwise could potentially be productive conversations. Sometimes I think it's definitely warranted - like when a guy acts like he knows more about childbirth than a mother of three or other situations where women's experiences are invalidated - but I've seen it used to shut down men's viewpoints entirely, which I don't find helpful. Overall I just find the term more divisive than anything, and its wide application to not be particularly useful to getting men to actually understand and respect women's viewpoints, which I think is the whole point. If there's sexism inherent to my viewpoint I'll try to see it and own up to it - but this is one of the things I've seen many feminists (something I consider myself to be) rally around, but have never really gotten on board with it.
There's a lot going on in this post. I will try to organize thoughts as best I can.
1) I think, at its core, the issue comes down to who gets to interpret what is going on in a conversation. People interpret all aspects of a conversation based off a vast array of life experiences. It is completely possible for you to not have any sexist motivation whatsoever in what you say while at the same time the other party in the conversation interprets what you say as having sexist motivations. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive and can both be 100% accurate and valid at the same time. From conversations with female counterparts and observations of work experiences, a significant portion of the offense comes from the pattern by which talking down to females ranges from acceptable to encouraged. People have a heightened awareness sensitivity to biases by which they have been judged before. In my not directly comparable (and much much much smaller scale) experiences, I get more irked than I should when people makes cracks about Southern people being uneducated hillbillies or people seem shocked that I have opinion about coworker's haircuts or dress because it falls outside the norm of what men are supposed to enjoy. This point also addresses the difference between your interactions with males and females. You can be just as condescending to male counterparts without getting accused of being inappropriate but that centers around how interactions between males tends to be. I believe (but could be wrong) you and I have spoken in the past re: our tendencies to have more female friends due to a certain level of discomfort with the way men tend to interact.
I appreciate your response and agree with it, especially the bolded part. I think what I (and us as a society) struggle with is navigating that exact situation. Because the propensity to perceive oppression where there is none is itself a symptom of that oppression. You get used to being condescended to because you live in a sexist society, so you perceive condescension where an honest dialogue is intended (even when it is presented without any condescension at all). Similarly, you unintentionally condescend to women because you live in a sexist society, even when the intent is honest. The woman is hyperaware, the man is underaware - both are negative consequences of widespread sexism. Also heehee that sounds like underwear. Where this sensitivity and the corresponding lack thereof meet is where the conflict lies. How do we reconcile this without either victim-blaming or blindly silencing the unconscious oppressor? Dialogue, coupled with a willingness for both sides to examine their biases - even if that means relinquishing a bit of self-righteousness. That's the best answer I've come up with so far, at least.
So. "Mansplaining". Gonna be a little stream-of-consciousness here. What I find within myself is a resistance to gender being brought into situations unnecessarily, but the I self-rebut by remembering that situations are inherently gendered because we still live in a sexist society. Therefore, something said from a man to a woman can be inherently different than when the same thing is said from a man to a man or a woman to a man or a woman to a woman. That seems to explain to me what mansplaining is: it is that difference that stems from our relational differences within an unequal power structure. So I try to make the question more specific: why does "mansplaining" rub me the wrong way? I think part of my resistance comes to the fact that I value objectivity, and on more than one occasion I've seen "mansplaining" used to invalidate objectively true statements in preference for validating feelings that are based on something untrue. An example would be that Twitter post on the previous page. The poster admits to intentionally acting dumb so that men will explain things to her, with the implication being that the men are then mansplaining and speaking condescendingly...even though she explicitly asked for an explanation to something. Yet somehow the men are mansplaining (sexist) for responding? I mean don't get me wrong, it's funny how in the comments the dude totally took the bait he was warned of, but he wasn't wrong in saying that she was being deceptive. The whole notion of "Hey let's artificially create situations that allow us to call men sexist when they act the way any human being would in that situation" is kinda shitty in my opinion.
So after thinking this through, it seems like the term mansplaining itself isn't what bothers me, but rather how it is often used.
The Twitter post example is an extremely overt example of it, but I do think there is a tendency in liberal circles to look for (and even create, in this case) ism-issues where there aren't or needn't be any - not all the time, but it does happen. The problems we have in society burn brightly enough; there's no need to stoke the fire. I'd like to think I'm more or less socially conscious most of the time - and I'm usually quite vocal about it - but I think we do ourselves a disservice when we seek to silence and invalidate a well-intended statement delivered with a condescending tone instead of reasoning with them about why that tone is problematic. I think more often than not, the term "mansplaining" does more of the former instead of the latter. And all that does it turn people off to our cause.
5.5/four tet, daphni b2b floating points, avalon emerson 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.21/serpentwithfeet 5.25/hozier 6.12-16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 6.29/goose 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.27-29/making time 10.17/air
5.5/four tet, daphni b2b floating points, avalon emerson 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.21/serpentwithfeet 5.25/hozier 6.12-16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 6.29/goose 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.27-29/making time 10.17/air
Ooh ooh I see how I can apply it to this very conversation. Forgive me for being so thought-brimmy tonight. Sometimes I overflow.
In that post, I'm essentially telling women how to combat their own oppression. Something I have no firsthand experience of (in regards to sex, at least). In that sense I could see how that could be seen as very mansplainy. But if someone wants to dismiss everything I said as if it has no value because I'm a guy...I still think that's shitty and detrimental to progress.
5.5/four tet, daphni b2b floating points, avalon emerson 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.21/serpentwithfeet 5.25/hozier 6.12-16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 6.29/goose 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.27-29/making time 10.17/air
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
I support this decision. Will you post a photo for us? I wanna see it.
Yes.
Can't wait to see. thejeremy has a box of dye for me, but he has been too busy doing other manly household repair things. Mine won't be fancy like yours, although I really really really miss my pink hair.