What Does Gas Have In Common With Potatoes?

Every now and then some idiot will tell you that schools should…

A Dying Breed: Young Voters and the LNP

The Liberal-National COALition has had, to put it lightly, a bad time…

Please don't ask the LNP about their future…

"Had I been asked about these matters at the time, I would…

Baguette Listings: Why Food is Politics

On November 30, the French baguette was formally added to the United…

Get out of the gutter

By 2353NM You may not have heard of Mike Rinder. A Scientologist for…

The Raider Spirit: The Unveiling of the B-21

The US military industrial complex has made news with another eye-wateringly expensive…

Two men found dead on the Moon

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 17 mission -…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

«
»
Facebook

Mansplain That, You Matronising Bitch!

Ah, I guess you’ve heard Mitch Fifield lost it today …

Over the term “mansplaining”.

Now, mansplaining. That’s a combination of “man” and “explain” and “ing”

The “man” refers to men when they explain.

The “explain” refers to when they explain in very, very simple terms.

And the “ing” is that bit of speech we add to things when it needs an “ing”.

And speech is that thing that people do when they push carbon dioxide out of their lungs and use their tongue and vocal chords to make sounds in ways that have meaning to people in their own cultural group.

Of course, some people are suggesting that that Labor senator, whatshername, got what was coming to her, because, well, the politically correct brigade try and stop people’s free speech by complaining when they hear someone making sexist comments and, well, MANSPLAINING, that’s sexist and if Mitchy had said it, then that Katy Gallagher woman would have complained and that’s what stops people like Mitch saying whatever they like. Fear of someone suggesting that they’re a man, because – as we all know from the Liberals decision to argue a case for the GST – it’s only men who are prepared to stand up for their beliefs.

Confused?

Yep, well, that’s because we no longer have a government that stands for anything. I mean, even something that we can disagree with.

So, the sort of argument that would embarrass Year 8 students is the stuff we discuss.

>Sigh<

Ah, such a shame that Tony isn’t still PM, because Barnaby and Tony, now there’s a dream team from Heaven!

Anyway, I’ll finish with a word from our PM.

From Malcolm Turnbull (just in case you wonder who it is this week).

All of us are sad today that Warren Truss and Andrew Robb have announced that they are not going to re-nominate for their seats at the next election.

They are two remarkable men who have made such a difference for Australia. Who have played such an enormous part in creating the nation we are today.

This is a watershed. Each of these men were farmer’s sons: They grew up on the land, with very deep roots in agriculture, understanding the most basic fundamental human industry, growing food and fibre. (Subtext = but not much beyond the most basic fundamental)

Each of them have long, strong marriages. They were able to do the things they did for Australia, because of Warren’s Lyn and Andrew’s Maureen. (Gay marriage is out then)

The most important thing for all of us to say to these men is thank you.

They have made Australia different.(But not too different, gay marriage is out remember) They’ve made Australia better. They’ve shaped Australia. They’ve shaped our future, whether it is in trade or it is in infrastructure or in their example of clear, warm, humane patriotism, a love of country.

I am proud to say that because of Warren’s and Andrew’s service, Australia has become a much luckier country — but they have helped make that luck more prosperous, more secure, greater opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you, Warren and Andrew.

And yet neither of them ever got best minister in the world…

I guess that must be because it’s a new award, so Greg Hunt is the only “Best Minister In the World”.

>Sigh<

And it’s just possible after this, that he may be the only one ever.

Still, Hitler was once Time‘s “Man of the Year” and they survived …

Ah, if only it could have been Tony and Barnaby …

Now there’s a dream team that would have made that nightmare I have about falling from a great height a beautiful alternative!

 240 total views,  2 views today

43 comments

Login here Register here
  1. kerri

    As I commented on a friend’s post praising Fifield for “bitch slapping” Katy Galagher, “smoke and mirrors. Fifield knows a media frenzy will arise out of the whole “mansplaining womansplaining” jibe and his answer to a serious question will go unremarked”
    Another person commented “and he still didn’t answer the question!”

  2. Annie B

    Rossleigh – –

    As always – a good, somewhat ascerbic article. But not so many laughs this time. At least I couldn’t laugh, as all this ‘political correctedness’ is doing my head in. ( ref. your comment – ” the politically correct brigade ” ).

    Cannot stand much more of it in our ‘free world’ . …. All bull-sh*t.

    And all that praise heaped in spades on Truss and Joyce, by the current PM ? That same PM – or any of his ministry, or any of the opposition would, without blinking an eyelid, thrust a knife in their backs. Wouldn’t turn a hair doing it. Oooops, sorry – M Turnbull, would put the knife in while smiling and uttering words of obsequious wisdom – from his ” How to Deliver a Good Speech That Cons Everyone ” notes.

    As for the subject of ‘mansplaining’ ….. I dare not comment !! … I’m in enough trouble as it is !! 😉

  3. horatio

    What I saw was Mitch losing it because a woman dared imply that he wasn’t on top of his brief (communications isn’t it?).

  4. Florence nee Fedup

    From the land. Father born 1900. No mansplaining in my family. Wouldn’t have survived. #auspol #qt

  5. Florence nee Fedup

    Mitch would have been much clever if he made an apology, saying he didn’t mean to be patronising. #auspol #qt

  6. Kaye Lee

    I watched the interchange today. Firstly, I dislike the term mansplaining. It used to be called overexplaining or being condescending or patronising – any of which would be a term that would waste less time in pointless argument. I am guilty of mansplaining myself – it’s a silly term.

    I wish I felt Fifield was calculating enough to have made a fuss to deflect from his refusal to answer questions but, watching it real time, I think he actually meant what he was saying. What a belligerent trivial man and how silly of Katy Gallagher to persist.

    “Each of them have long, strong marriages. They were able to do the things they did for Australia, because of Warren’s Lyn and Andrew’s Maureen.”

    I wonder if people think how their words will affect others? I was expecting the ubiquitous Lucy to add her bit as I watched Julie Bishop adopt her fixed smile.

    I thought the world would get less weird once Tony Abbott was gone. I was wrong.

  7. iggy648

    “Patronising” is sexist. “Parentalising” surely?

  8. Backyard Bob

    “Mansplaining” is no more than another way for idiot feminists to wield power over, and silence, men. Yes, it actually does happen, but no more than femsplaining. Condescension is simply a way to impose one’s perceived superiority over another. Making a gender issue out of it is just an insult to intelligence.

  9. my say

    Kaye, weird indeed we now have Barnaby Joyce as deputy PM ,another Abbott clone .god help us

  10. paul walter

    Mansplaining.

    Quite simple- Annie B is reluctant to use the term for fear of retaliation- all men (as all women know) tell lies, exclusively. Therefore, any explanation offered by a man to a woman is at best rationalising on Bad Behaviour, more likely an opportunity seized on by men to indulge themselves in their incorrigibly favourite and pathological past time; lying to and tricking women, or other men if no woman is available.

    Boiled down to core, if a man says it, it must be a lie, but best not give the game away, that you know it, for they are all like little boys and it comes down to men behaving badly man- managed, from avoiding the in laws by feigning illness then going to the football with the another perenial problem, the mates and turning up drunk at 2.30 in the morning claiming this to be medicinally inducedl.

    Pretending to have a crook back to avoid a visit to Bunnings and gardening to watch the cricket instead whilst groaning in faked pain and getting you to make him a cup of tea or bring in a tinnie is another, or ogling a female in a mini skirt then saying he is admiring the design of the skirt.

    It is the sort of deep theoretical reasoning employed by plastics like Fiona Cash or a whole coven of newspaper columnists and should not be thought of as just an undergrad thing.

  11. Deanna Jones

    It’s nothing to do with male behaviour, paul. The term evolved out of feminist internet discourse and is used to refer to when male commenters try to rationalise issues such as violence against women and gently explain why the feminists have it all wrong. Mansplaining refers to the male assumption that their perspective is far superior, always. Having participated in many online feminist spaces, I can assure you that the phenomena of Mansplaining happens frequently. Quite simply, women used language to define their lived experiences. Now these terms are making their way into the more mainstream discourses and being spectacularly misunderstood by people who are unaware of the historical context of them.

    There is no womansplaining because there is no parallel universe where women have total power over men.

    There is however, whitesplaining, hetsplaining etc.

  12. paul walter

    Luv ya, Deanna. Love you to bits.

  13. paul walter

    I messed up my comment, that proposed the real flaws in male behaviour devolve to poor man-management from less stolid, more easy going women, who fail to realise what a tight clamp must be kept on the beasts.

  14. paul walter

    Fancy any one taking notice of a pitiful wad like Fifield, who is currently embarked on the final destruction of public broadcasting.

    He does indeed reveal the tragic consequences and harm done as to male individuation and socialistion in a capitalist/ patriarchal society at this early stage in human and social evolution.

  15. Kaye Lee

    The point about being descriptive of lived experience is a good one Deanna. My part time job through university was as a bookmaker’s clerk. At the time, I was the only female who worked on a stand in the ring. Most of the time I was the payout clerk. Many male punters would ask the guy on the bag to verify the amount I told him to pay. Considering I was the one with the book it was silly. Thankfully, I had earned the respect of my workmates who would answer “Whatever the lady said.” We went to a late dinner one night after work and the restaurant owner was bemoaning the lack of mathematical skills of the youth of the day. My workmates suggested that I proved that assertion wrong so the owner challenged me – he had a waiter write up two identical bills and if I could add it up correctly faster than him, our meal was free. When I beat him he was so impressed he also gave us a bottle of the best champagne in the house..Being female and young, I was constantly having to prove myself. Men could not accept that I was good at maths.

  16. susan

    Deanna Jones, you are exactly right and I suspect you will need to repeat yourself a lot more in the future as women get more bold in actually daring to use the word.

  17. Deanna Jones

    paul, right back atcha. How is everyone over on TT?

    Thanks for sharing Kaye. I think all women can identify with this experience ( even right wing neocon women!). I’ve found ways to deal with it. My daughter is constantly frustrated by it in the work place. Raised to believe she can be anything now shocked to find blatant sexism at every turn.

    Susan, our time is coming.

  18. paul walter

    Deanna, you”ll possibly know that Bob has been back in hospital, but just now seems back to some sort of functionality. Several others illnesses have surfaced in discussing how Bob travels and that is disheartening also, like him they are brilliant people, both male and female.

    As you know, there are NEVER stoushes at TT, just polite exchanges concerning things like Islamophobia, refugees, sexism, racism, colonialism, Xtianity, fascism, socialism, feminism, capitalism and various other isms and of course Canberra and the US.

    Much the same sort of stuff as AIM does but in a slightly more quirky, idiosyncratic and rough-hewn sort of way…at the moment it is about Joyce at one thread, while Bob ponders, in that sadly amazed and bemused melancholic way of his, the black miracle that the Tories find Morrison some sort of leadership prospect. I know what he feels as to that and I bleed for him.

  19. Deanna Jones

    Thanks, paul. I’m not in touch with anyone there but sorry to hear Bob is ill again. What a prospect, to be near the end and despairing at this lot who are running (ruining) the place. Pass on my salutations to my old buddies, please. I’m present at lots of refugee rights protests in Sydney so if any TTers are also they are welcome to say hi. Short blonde hair, Ray Bans and ankle height Doc Martens in Ox Blood are my signature accessories.

  20. paul walter

    Onya. Don’t be edgy about having a scan for anything in the comments even if you don’t want to comment and risk conflict. If others don’t like your comments, too bad. Plenty don’t like mine also.

  21. Annie B

    @ Paul Walter — re : your comment : February 12, 2016 at 3:16 am

    I do not follow your comments Paul – in fact it is quite perplexing. Speaking for myself, it’s a ‘no’ from me, I was not ‘in fear of retaliation’ as there is no retaliation to be had or seen. My final sentence was a glib, tongue in cheek, vague attempt at humour – that is all.

    No doubt you have heard of “Vive la différence” …. I love that 3 word phrase in French as it sums up all that is right ( and wrong ) in the scheme of things. ….. Men are men – women are women. ” Vive la différence – Long live the difference” between the genders. In a utopian world, the two balance one another out perfectly. But this is not utopia. Both men – and women, have taken it into their heads to come into deep conflict with one another. Men ( some only ), being physically superior ( mostly ?? ) … flex their muscles, raise their voices while retaining that deep ‘bellow’ and go on the attack against women, verbally at least and worse – physically.

    Women ( some only ) on the other hand, have had decades – nay centuries, to perfect their bitchy rejoinders. And they are good at it. Who starts these uproars ? Or should I say, ” which came first – the chicken or the egg” ? Was it always men who started this ‘thing’ that is now so way out of hand, that is bordering on ridiculous – and nightmare stuff ? Or was it woman …. who stood up for herself, and still does – if having to do so, even by devious methods.

    I do not understand your attack on your own gender ( if you Paul are indeed a male, and not using a pseudonym – and are a female ? ). But it is not lost, that you are being sarcastic – you too, with tongue in cheek … saying that women blame men for everything.

    Ain’t so, mate.

    As for ‘mansplaining’ … I frankly have never heard of a more ridiculous moniker to describe the way men communicate – which IS different to the way women communicate, and always will be. …. Except, in the case of a male who is effeminate and speaks, intones, like a woman — and watch what will happen to HIM. …. By many bully men he ( that’s HE ) will be maligned, called a fag, a back-door bandit, a poof and other demeaning descriptions. … Gentle men will accept a homosexual as he is, without capitulating, and without slander.

    Perhaps we should indeed throw in ‘whitesplaining’ – ‘hetsplaining’ – how’s about homosplaining, kidsplaining, misogysplaining, blacksplaining, or misandsplaining. Oh yes, – and femsplaining.

    Oh there could be heaps more ‘splainin’ to do.

    *** as for Fifield and Gallagher – they are good pair – as silly as one another.

  22. Annie B

    @ Deanna ……

    your comment : ” Raised to believe she can be anything now shocked to find blatant sexism at every turn. ” …… There is no way that sexism ( which has been around since Adam was a pup ) should even minutely impact on the way your daughter was raised ” to believe she can be anything” … She STILL can be anything she wants. …. Nasty words, innuendo, cruel jibes – cannot alter that. … She must treat the sexism with the contempt it deserves, and move on towards her own goals.

    Your daughter will also find sexism from people of her own sex – bitches in the work place, ( there is ALWAYS at least one ) who ( if your daughter is very successful ) will try to pull her down at every opportunity. She will be learning life and how to deal with it …. how to deal with men AND women who are unscrupulous, nasty, sexist, jealous, manipulative, narcissistic, and just downright bloody.

    They were undoubtedly raised to be that way …. your daughter was not.

    Let her shine her light widely and brightly, and never be shocked at the vagaries of human nature.

    I am sure she will do extremely well.

  23. Backyard Bob

    “Mansplaining” – in its formal meaning – happens. It simply does. But then so does Femsplaining. I recall fairly recently having “mansplaining” femsplained to me by a feminist. That was pretty funny because in the debate about whether a certain New Matilda article was an exercise in mansplaining, I’d given no indication that I didn’t fully understand the concept. It was simply that I disagreed, so therefore, I couldn’t possibly “get it”.

    Being patronising or condescending is not a gender issue, it’s an ego issue. The simple fact is if Fifield had have given that exact same answer to another male Senator, no-one would have noticed. The further question of whether he would have done so to a male Senator is not worth addressing. If female MPs and Senators are going to use this term in response to evasive answers then we’ve got a problem.

  24. Annie B

    Backyard Bob ….

    You are not wrong there – in your last sentence, I mean.

    Frankly, we have a big problem if ANY of these ‘invented’ words are used anywhere. There is I think an element of scorn in both ‘mansplaining & femsplaining’.

    There’s enough crap going on in the world, without this as well.

  25. Backyard Bob

    Annie,

    The truth is “mansplaining” does happen, but if it’s going to be applied to a context where patronisation and condescension are, sadly, pretty much the norm – i.e. government – then it will be a term misused and ultimately counterproductive to feminist aims. I do feel that contemporary feminists needs to be cautious in how they apply certain ideas. Many of them are overdoing it, frankly.

    I would have liked to have seen Fifield’s actual answer to the question. All I can find is the silly bit after the mansplaining accusation.

  26. Deanna Jones

    The irony of a man mansplaining the term ‘Mansplaining’ to feminists and telling them they are doing it all wrong. I have lost count of the number of men on and offline who say exactly what Bob just said:
    “The way you ladies are going about this is all wrong and you will end up making things worse for yourselves. You need to describe your lived experiences in ways that are pleasing to the men or shut up”

    Guess what, Bob. We know best how to frame these issues. You lack clues.

  27. Mercurial

    “Ladies”????? Goes with gentlemen, and I don’t see that word used anywhere

  28. Backyard Bob

    Deanna,

    Your attitude is precisely the problem. It is, itself, utterly patronising and condescending. The concept of mansplaining is not the least bit difficult to understand and it is simply true that some feminists falsely apply it to a given circumstance so as to silence a man or just wield power. When you apply the epithet mansplaining falsely it is counterproductive.

    What you are essentially saying to me is that only women can possibly understand mansplaining and identify when it’s happening. That is complete and utter bullshit. All you’re doing is femsplaining at me.

  29. Florence nee Fedup

    Love it when men continue to tell us how we should react to what they say. How we should behave to stop them criticising us.

    Telling us what we have to do not to upset them.

    They don’t get the message that we react in anyway we feel inclined.

    If they don’t like the way we react, change the behaviour.

    Not up to is to do so.

    It is up to each individual to work out what suits them.

  30. Annie B

    @ Deanna …. ( to begin with ) —

    Um ? I cannot find anywhere here, where ‘Bob’ said the following, as quoted by you : “The way you ladies are going about this is all wrong and you will end up making things worse for yourselves. You need to describe your lived experiences in ways that are pleasing to the men or shut up” …. I have searched and searched and there is nothing here denoting those exact words ?

    Perhaps you saw a post, that was ultimately unpublished.
    ( have seen those myself over the years, delivered to my email inbox and then not shown on AIM ).

    ********

    In any case, all this ‘splaining’ business can be either or both – condescension and patronising ( both genders do that ) … or an awkward way of putting things, to another person ( not gender specific – both genders do that too ).

    I have been spoken to by men in a patronising, condescending way for years ….. and I have been spoken to by women that way too, on many occasions. … That galls particularly. …. Patronising / condescension, is what it is – no matter who utters it. …. And there’s only one way to deal with it – for both ( or all ) genders. Turn your back on it, desist replying because the attitude is NOT worth a reply. If one gets into a verbal punch-up over something that has been incorrectly delivered ( in a patronising fashion ? ) …. then continuing the exchange, only enhances the possibility of MORE of a divide between men and women, ( or for that matter, men and men – AND women and women ).

    “Mansplaining – and Femsplaining ” kicks acceptance of one another straight to the kerb. It is time we began to realise the meaning of the word ‘acceptance’. ( that’s a word that seems to have gone out with button up boots !! ). Neither man, nor woman – need to ‘explain’ things to each other, that is ‘pleasing’. Neither should kow-tow to the other … or ‘shut up’. For heavens’ sake. … If we speak the truth, as we see it ( individually ), then there is absolutely no need for this type of conversation.

    This is underscored by Backyard Bob’s comment on February 13, 2016 at 4:28 pm. He has pointed the finger of blame ( in response ) to Deanna’s comments. ….. And previously, she did the same.

    Stop it – all of you. ….. This gets no-one anywhere. …. If we ( as a populace ) could bury the ‘them vs. us’ idea, the world might just become slightly more livable, once again.

    If not – we need a whole heap of help !!

  31. Deanna Jones

    Bob, I refer you to my first comment on the topic, up thread. Answer the clue phone.

    Florence, amusing is it not? And now I have an “attitude problem” so ooh naughty me.

    Annie, I refer you back to my first comment as well; there is no female equivalent to mansplaining for the same reason there is no ‘reverse racism’.

    Also, Annie, I was paraphrasing and should not have used quotation marks. My apologies.

  32. Florence nee Fedup

    Deanna, my reply was aimed at men. I said it is up to women to work out how they react.

    Not sure why you think I was inferring you have an attitude problem. Wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular.

  33. Deanna Jones

    I think I mis communicated, Florence. I’m agreeing with you and the attitude problem was a reference to Bob’s comment. Cheers.

  34. Florence nee Fedup

    Sorry. That makes more sense.

  35. Backyard Bob

    Deanna,

    Bob, I refer you to my first comment on the topic, up thread. Answer the clue phone.

    Florence, amusing is it not? And now I have an “attitude problem” so ooh naughty me.

    Well, you know what they say – if the shoe fits. But I’ll be back soon to break your original post down and show you why I find elements of it illogical then analyse the exchange between Senator’s whatshisname and whatsherface and the problems I see in that with the application of the label “mansplaining”.

    Buy some popcorn.

  36. Deanna Jones

    Don’t bother, Bob. I’m staking a higher knowledge claim here which you won’t accept. We’re done.

  37. Backyard Bob

    No, “we’re” not done, you arrogant &^%$. “You” may be done but I’m not. I reject your “higher knowledge” claim out of hand. It amounts to a piece of hypocritical “femsplaining”, and, frankly, that is as bad as the mansplaining that is rightly condemned. So let’s do some actual logic here rather than specious emotional bluster and psychological manipulation. Oops, “manipulation” starts with “man” so there’s bound to be something in that that no man can possibly see …

    To start, as I’ve said twice now in this thread, and with an acknowledgement that such a concession of the truth of mansplaining having been ignored, I’ll say it a third time, just so there’s no possibility of the fact of it being ignored: “mansplaining” happens, and it happens too often to be ignored or to be acceptable, But the thing is not all behaviour automatically conforms to the label. This is why some feminists have decided to expand the meaning of the term (sound familiar?) to include other behaviours that have no identifiable connection with gender, or in the case addressed by this article, a sense of superiority.

    Let’s look at Deanna’s original post which she suggests I’m clueless about:

    It’s nothing to do with male behaviour, paul.

    You must be defining “behaviour” in a specialist “feminist” way because “mansplaining” is definitionally a descriptor of male behaviour. It’s there in the definition you give.

    The term evolved out of

    Its evolution is mostly irrelevant to its meaning and social application.

    Mansplaining refers to the male assumption that their perspective is far superior, always.

    Except that that isn’t how the term is defined. Mansplaining is a derivation of “splaining” in general:

    ‘Splaining is a form of condescension in which a member of a privileged group explains something to a member of a marginalised group — most particularly, explains about their marginalisation — as if the privileged person knows more about it.’

    Modern “western” feminists who say they they are part of a “marginalised” group delusional at best, because it just isn’t true. Let’s keep in mind the meaning of words and what “marginalised” means.

    Mind you, I said Deanna’s definition of “mansplaining” isn’t how it’s defined. the truth is it’s now being defined to suit a context. i.e. it’s a rhetorical too designed to wield power and no longer merely a valid term to identify bullshit behaviour. This is my problem with its use – it’s being misused and that’s causing it to be treated less seriously by men than it should be.

    Having participated in many online feminist spaces, I can assure you that the phenomena of Mansplaining happens frequently.

    I agree with that observation. I’ve seen it a million times. However, I’m increasingly seeing the label of “mansplaining” falsely attributed to examples where a man is merely giving his opinion or perspective. This is where we begin the slippery slope into the territory of feminists claiming that only they can understand their issues and that no man can legitimately speak to those issues. We’ve seen that precise attitude in Deanna’s posts already.

    Quite simply, women used language to define their lived experiences.

    And, you know sheeet, no man has ever done that.

    Now these terms are making their way into the more mainstream discourses

    And where properly and truthfully applied, that is all to the good, because as I acknowledged, mansplaining happens, and it shouldn’t.

    and being spectacularly misunderstood by people who are unaware of the historical context of them.

    And this is the first place where I call bullshit. The fact is the word is being misapplied the more common it gets and that is pretty typical of modern feminism’s disregard for conventions with regard to meaning in language. Too many feminists use language as political toys, expanding, changing and manipulating words to effect a “this is how it is because it’s my ‘lived experience” paradigm.

    There is no womansplaining because there is no parallel universe where women have total power over men.

    Logical principles mean nothing to feminists, apparently. There are any number of contexts where women can – and do – indulge in the gender equivalent of mansplaining. “Feminism” is the glaringly obvious example. It is blindingly obvious in this very discussion thread. You’ll note the requirement of hyperbole for the point to be made: “where women have total power over men”. In the context of western society, at least, this sort of claim ought be derided for the idiocy that it is. And yet, it seems that this sort of logical fallacy is a requisite for feminist claims nowadays.

    Here’s a classic example of a particular type of feminist arrogance that, unbeknownst to such women, is harming women globally:

    The irony of a man mansplaining the term ‘Mansplaining’ to feminists and telling them they are doing it all wrong.

    Seems it’s not possible for a man to a) comprehend and identify mansplaining when it is or is not happening: and b) be able to express a view about it in a specific context without it being dismissed as an exercise in male ignorance in general. As an exercise, in probable futility, try changing the gender of Deanna’s posts and see how they look.

    Btw, I “explained” nothing at any time. I gave a view on something. It seems some feminists don’t even understand the notion of “explanation”.

    Anyway, I’ll leave my response to Deanna’s breathtaking sanctimony with her intellectual dishonesty:

    I have lost count of the number of men on and offline who say exactly what Bob just said:
    “The way you ladies are going about this is all wrong and you will end up making things worse for yourselves. You need to describe your lived experiences in ways that are pleasing to the men or shut up”

    I of course said nothing even remotely like that characterization, but it doesn’t matter, does it?

    As for the Fifield/Gallagher exchange – I haven’t seen the full video so all I can make a judgment upon facts in evidence – i.e. the clips on Youtube.

    If you watch the first minute of any of those clips you’ll see that Gallagher’s complaint and assignment of “mansplaining” doesn’t remotely fit with her actual problem with Fifield’s response. She doesn’t at any point say “I know this stuff and you’re patronising me”. She says he’s being wafty and evasive. She then, falsely, assigned the category “mansplaining” to something that happens routinely in that context by both genders equally.

    Her criticism of “mansplaining” was as stupid, false, and counterproductive to feminism – in terms of having this phenomena properly perceived – as was Tanya Plibersek’s shot at Malcolm Turnbull a few months prior.

    Did Fifield “mansplain”? I don’t ultimately know; I’d need to see the question and response to make that judgement. Certainly, very certainly, he did not “mansplain” merely because Gallagher saw an opportunity to label it that way.

    But, apparently, according to some, 2+2=14 is true if it’s your “lived experience”.

  38. Florence nee Fedup

    I as a woman will decide what language I used when I find a man talking to me in a patronising and put down manner.

    If I want to use mansplaining or just you are a patronising twit is my choice, If any male don’t like it, just be careful choosing your words when talking to a woman.

    Nothing to do with feminism. To do with what shit I decide I will take from some men.

    Men have no right to decide how I behave or react to patronising, mainly arrogant men,

    BB, that is what you are attempting to do.

    What matters is was the senator patronising or not. Not the language Gallagher choose to describe it.

    What is being described is the patronising way some men talk to women, Women no longer accept such behaviour as being acceptable.

    Personally I like “you are a partronising twit bettter, That would be my choice. More insulting that mansplaining.

  39. Backyard Bob

    Florence,

    What matters is was the senator patronising or not. Not the language Gallagher choose to describe it.

    No, its not, It’s precisely the language that was used. You do not get to accuse a man of “mansplaining” if he isn’t doing it! It’s a basic principle of justice and logic.

    We’re entering a phase of discourse which has this characteristic: A born-again Xian tells you that you can’t possibly know that God doesn’t exist because the existence of God is their “lived experience”. Every argument you put up is illegitimate because you have not experienced their “lived experience” of God’s existence.

    That is what we’re dealing with here, as opposed to a sensible and practical discussion of how actual mansplaining might be eradicated.

    Q: do feminists really want it to stop or do they simply want it and whatever linguistic variant they can apply to a given situation to continue, so as to wield power?

  40. Backyard Bob

    I as a woman will decide what language I used when I find a man talking to me in a patronising and put down manner.

    And when you call me a helicopter I will tell you I am not.

  41. Florence nee Fedup

    I think if you listened to Senate estimates, patronising language from government senators is the norm, In fact if from Brandis and co, it is just plain insulting, especially to the likes of Trigg.

    You seem to have made the decision that no patronising behviour took place.

  42. Florence nee Fedup

    I have no problem with you disputing what I call you. I have problems with questioning the language I used to do so.

    Telling a woman she is being a feminist while doing so is only adding to the put down intended by the male.

    I will suggest the male might be better to reply that he was sorry if you took my comment as patronising. I didn’t mean to be.

  43. Kaye Lee

    Hansard is not yet available for the exchange but, to give some context, Katy Gallagher was questioning Mitch Fifield about some welfare and families bills introduced the day after the Liberal’s September leadership spill and whether they had the authority of the new Prime Minister.

    This saw the Communications Minister (representing Social Services Minister Christian Porter in the Senate) launch into a lengthy explanation of internal government processes.

    But before Gallagher could follow up with another inquiry, Fifield added: “Let me just stop you so you don’t waste a line of questioning”.

    It is obvious that Fifield was avoiding the question and the method he used was to explain a process that Ms Gallagher and all others present would be more than aware of and then to try and shut her down.

    Put whatever label you want on it. Mansplaining seems the most descriptive to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: