Skip to main content

In shocking news today, a woman reported an exchange she experienced as mansplaining - that thing that witch-hunting women with hyper-active imaginations and super-sensitive grudges on their shoulders complain of, but which no one has yet to prove really happens.

Oh wait. That's not shocking. What's shocking is that a mere woman should expect that her experience be seen as valid unless men have seen fit to give the anointment oil to that one, particular experience. (Each experience must be independently verified. Women can not be trusted to have the sense to maintain a sound mind for these kinds of evaluations.)

Let's be clear. Until male scientists develop the penis-shaped Mansplain Meter which can identify and measure the intensity of a mansplanation, we cannot be expected to affirm that a woman's experience, and her intuition about the underlying dynamics of it, could possibly be correct. It is of tantamount importance that she be set straight.

Until the Mansplain Meter is developed, let it be known that men are the ultimate authority on determining when a mansplanation has occurred and it is the burden of the woman to prove beyond his male-dominated doubt that mansplaining has occurred.

Women simply shouldn't discuss, much less write, about these things until they have the stamp of approval of a cross-section of males from all the different sports team fan bases. (you can't rely on a Cardinals fan without a double affirmation from a Oilers fan, after all.)

If women are foolish enough to do so, it is perfectly reasonable to have men put her in check by demanding proof. It is important to the continuity of mascu-manity that she be held accountable for her misbehavior by being publicly chastized as rude for having had what a man deems as less than civil response to the man whom she is accusing of mansplaining, as it is unacceptable that women have the audacity to be upset with a man, until the aforementioned cross-section of men have deemed her assessment of mansplaining to be correct. Until such time, she is to be polite and deferent. Any other behavior is a punishable offense.

Now.. back to our regular programming....

in future news, all references to women will be changed to "person of color", all references of "mansplaining" will be changed to "whitesplaining" and the needed instrument of measure will be the halo-shaped Whitesplain Widget. We can predict the need for this news, as we know some ill-bred person of color is likely to complain about having been whitesplained to and will then be offended when white people come along to explain how wrong they are and put them in their place.

 

7:18 PM PT: Again, we break into our regular programming to report that our initial story left out a key component to establishing the Mansplain Complaint Protocol.

It is not ironic at all, nor would it be proper to omit, men declaring their own feminist credentials whilst denying a woman's mansplaining complaint. This self-declaration of a proper feminist perspective serves to concretely verify the extra-special veracity of their assessment that your complaint is without merit. Since men have superior sensibilities to the subtleties of sexism and are far more skilled at self-assessment of their own qualities, it is critical that men announce the depth of their actualized feminist self when judging a woman's report of sexism.

7:47 PM PT: We're sorry to interrupt your regular programming again, but apparently, we didn't make this clear enough: benefit of the doubt always goes to the male in an interaction. Get with the program, folks! Misogsociety is dependent upon it!

8:17 PM PT: The producers of tonight's new would like to send appreciation to those so obediently following the Mansplaining Protocol so soon after publication. It is heartening to realize that we are that influential. We are encouraged to continue our work of laying out the protocols for a proper civil society. Thank you for being the role models you are.

Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM PT: We would like to acknowledge that our protocol outline is a work in progress and is not complete. This could be why some people are not clear about some aspects of the protocol. The producers will consider running another news piece with more details spelled out, since we know women will need every aspect made explicit or it would be too taxing for their man-hating brains.

Until then, we would remind everybody that solidarity is important. When a complaint of mansplaining is made, we cannot let the tender reputation and vulnerable position of men take a hit, if there is any chance at all that we can find any line of logic to justify a man's behavior toward a woman which could maybe, possibly suggest that he didn't really intend to be sexist. We can't let women start making false accusations. We all remember that dark, dark period in history where the male gender went almost extinct due to a plague of false accusations of mansplaining. Be alert. Don't let a woman get one minute of peace when she makes a mansplaining accusation. The risk is far too great.

Originally posted to UnaSpenser on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:09 PM PDT.

Also republished by Sluts, Sex, Body, and Gender, Feminism, Pro-Feminism, Womanism: Feminist Issues, Ideas, & Activism, and Sexism and Patriarchy.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I presume I'm exempt (12+ / 0-)
    men declaring their own feminist credentials

    "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:26:17 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for this! (24+ / 0-)

    I have no idea why you are calling this snark, quite honestly you are raising an essential point. The fact that some men feel the need to tell women how and on what issues to organise is simply amazing to me. Instead of analysing their discomfort, they tell you that you are making them uncomfortable ... where would we be if we didn't have men to explain our oppression and exploitation and tell us how to fight for our rights? I am really pissed off!

    "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

    by NY brit expat on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:29:48 PM PDT

  •  ...except that he didn't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut, RainyDay

    The message of the original poster is that David Pogue treated her with "condescending" "sexism" because it was obvious she was a woman.  She and you can't present any evidence that a man submitting an equivalent email (of which he probably gets hundreds in a day) would get a more solicitous response, can you?

  •  Oh please, it's not just men telling her she was (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut, RainyDay, ChurchofBruce

    full of it. I opened her diary hoping to get my hate on Microsoft and a stupid sexist jerk, but her story was an embarrassment. She unjustly insults the man in the first sentence she sends him and then is upset that he replied condescendingly to her. Reaping what you sow. Sauce goose gander.

    •  she didn't insult him. She was referring to being (25+ / 0-)

      someone who's work is all done on the software versus someone who doesn't use it so intensely.

      I find it ironic that her words are not given the best possible interpretation but his are. That, in and of itself, is part of a culture of misogyny.

      She informs him that she's a secretary, who uses the software intensely and he can't have the decency to simply say, "you have a point."

      He doesn't even respond the actual complaints she's making.

      He presumed a superiority because he's a vaunted Tech Writer and the emailer was just a secretary. His inability to actually read what she said and validate any points she makes, were all based in ego and patriarchy. We don't have to prove he knew her gender. (It's possible that her email address revealed it, though) We can gather, based on demonstrated society norms, that when he saw the word secretary, he viscerally responded as though the writer was email

      But, again..... women don't have to prove they have experienced mansplaining. It happens to us at such a relentless pace, and is so rarely affirmed with any solidarity, that picking apart the possibility that there might be some error in perception in this one case, when it is also highly possible that her intuition is correct, is just another aspect of perpetuating misogyny. If there is doubt, credit the male and discredit the female.

      Job well done.

      •  "as though the writer was female." (4+ / 0-)
        •  Same guy is uprating notblind's misogynistic (5+ / 0-)

          comments in the Steubenville rape diay. Two of a kind, I think.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 08:11:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not the same kind of "guy" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego

            1) I am female.
            2) I rec'd notblind's comment because it pointed out the flaw of the analogy. I had already rec'd the analogy because I thought it was a great point. I didn't take the response to mean that it was OK to rape a woman even if she drifted in and out of consciousness. I hope you reconsider your opinion of my being misogynistic. You did appreciate 2 of my comments in that diary enough to rec them.

            In this case, if her original email hadn't been so condescending and he still responded the way he did, I would be totally in her corner. It just seems to me that he is responding in kind. Well that and he is woefully clueless and dismissive about the software details she brings up.

            •  I didn't find her first email condescending (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clem Yeobright, irishwitch

              toward the tech writer.
              I thought it was irritation at the softwear. And it was very slight.

            •  WIth a name like that who can tell. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lostinamerica

              I just think it was interesting that you uprated him in TWO diaries in both of which his comments were very insulting to women.  

              Her email wasn't condescending.  She wanted answers to a question and didn't kiss his feet.  His review and his answers to her wee precisely the sort I've seen in tech forums where the writer is female and obviously not a an IT or hacker type.  They seem to think people who simply use the programs rather than write them are second class citizens. I've actually seen one little twit tell a user (whose name was definitely female) that if she couldn't understand his answers she should sellt he computer and stick to pen and paper.

              When she said she did "real work" she was right. Secretaries have to be pretty smart these days. Many of them have college degrees. They often end up doing a fair share of their boss's work. I know because I've been one, with two master's degrees.

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 09:41:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think she admitted to being condescending (0+ / 0-)

                in her first reply to me. She said that her first draft was worse. Too bad she didn't take another pass at editing it. I have experienced the type of sexism she claims this is. This guy might have even been a sexist jerk to her even if she had been polite in her first email. He might have been just as pompous responding to a man.

                I think she is acting like a girl who slaps a guy, then cries when he slaps her back.

      •  No, I am not giving his words the best possible (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cryonaut

        interpretation. He was definitely condescending to her. Also his response did not address the contents of her mail well at all. But remember SHE contacted him first. She was condescending and insulting to him first. You reap what you sow. Her rudeness to him was uncalled for. His rudeness to her was a response to her rudeness. He was a moron to respond to her bait, but it's not like his condescension was unprompted. I still think she is a moron for getting upset when people respond to her in kind.

        And no, the genders are not really relevant here. She'd be just as stupid if she were male and the writer was female.

  •  and the nonsense about nonsense (0+ / 0-)

    continues.

    •  yeah, because misogyny and the complete (17+ / 0-)

      inability of people to stand in solidarity, when we know the benefit of the doubt should always go to those in the dominant power group, is such a load of nonsense that we should waste our time with.

      Sorry to bother you. Move on. Nothing to see here.

      •  some people (0+ / 0-)

        have this amazing psychic ability to foresee sexism, misogyny, "mansplaining" and other victimizations before they even occur and in that particular case even when they don't occur. They are so wrapped up in whatever tiny issue they care about, that it is inconceivable to them that others might have different interests or god forbid different emphasis.

        Writing a boring and semi-rude rant on some obscure (not used by a vast majority of Office users) topic to someone who clearly doesn't have the time to deal with all but the most interesting correspondence, and expecting an informative and polite response is the height of self-absorption. And then a mountain is made of that.

        Clearly that is the social justice issue for the ages.

          •  the tiny issue (0+ / 0-)

            was the topic of the previous diary's email correspondence... You have a reading comprehension issue. It was quite obvious what the "tiny issue" was from the context of my comment. You deliberately misread it. Good for you!

          •  rather (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cryonaut

            "a very busy person's curt and glossing-over-the-point response to a semi-rude ranting email" is a "tiny issue".

            i still don't see how pogue being short and missing the point of the original question is sexism merely because he's a man and the diarist was a woman.

            i've gotten the same sort of response out of female supervisors/muckety-mucks at my job, where i lay out a problem in detail and i get a one-line response from a busy woman that shows that she didn't even read the email enough to sufficiently get the point. is that sexism too, because she's not showing sufficient fealty to my position? at least in my case the original email doesn't tell her that job isn't 'real work'.

            anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

            by chopper on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:51:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  "expecting an informative and polite response is (11+ / 0-)

          the height of self-absorption"

          This is supposed to the normal expectation when writing to someone who is paid to be informed.

          I hope you don't have any daughters.

          •  no (0+ / 0-)

            it's the normal expectation when writing to someone who is paid to respond to those sort of things. pogue is not being paid to answer every email he gets, and i'm sure he gets a ton of them anyways.

            i can send paul krugman as many emails as i want to, i don't expect him to respond to them, much less in a lot of detail. and certainly if from the get-go i tell him that what he does isn't 'real work' i shouldn't expect much of anything at all in return. i wouldn't if i were him and i got that sort of email from a stranger.

            anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

            by chopper on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:54:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  If it has a negative effect on 50% of humans, (14+ / 0-)

          it's not a "tiny issue"/

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 08:12:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego

            the lack of keyboard mapping shortcuts to the Office menus has a serious negative effect on 50% of humans. I gotcha.

            •  because, yeah, that was her issue with how he (11+ / 0-)

              responded to her.

              Clearly, you have the protocol down. Thank you for your model participation.

              •  as someone who (0+ / 0-)

                has had a good fill of user tech support, I pray I never have to run into users like you. God forbid I accidentally mansplain something I have no expertise or interest in. Then I'd forever be known as that sexist IT guy.

                The only mistake that guy made was to respond to her rant. There was no reason to respond but he was too nice.

                •  since I used to do IT support, I am well aware (12+ / 0-)

                  of how to provide responses to people without being condescending.

                  I know he Someone Important because he's a man writing for a magazine! the very idea that we should be thankful if he responds to us, regardless of how much of an asshat he is, is absurd.

                  What is clear from that email exchange is that she has more experience with the software than he has.

                  Since he can pick and choose who he responds to, he could have chosen not to respond. Since he did respond, he could have been gracious about it and acknowledged that she may have had some points that he wasn't aware of.

                  Instead he tried to school her as if she were a newbie user. Worse, he didn't actually give her lessons on the issues she was bringing up.

                  Thank you for participating in tonight's exercise of highlighting the best executors of the Mainsplaining Protocol.

                  Please, keep 'splainin' me. My pretty little girl-head doesn't get it yet.

                  •  if a user (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RainyDay

                    contacts me with a long rant about the software I deal with and support, and then start it with a wish that more people like the user worked in my damn job, because obviously only people like her do the real work and know all the features of the software... I would put that arrogant user on a personal blacklist. I certainly would not try to address anything in the rant.

              •  her issue (0+ / 0-)

                with how pogue responded to her was that he was curt and glossed over her problem in his response. she sees that as sexism merely because 'he could tell by my name that i'm a woman'.

                others are disagreeing, because she was rude in the first place and shouldn't have expected a respectful reply, and that pogue is a busy person who wouldn't even be expected to respond in detail anyways.

                you seem to think believing the latter means you don't care at all about sexism. apparently if we're not as sufficiently outraged as you are about this incident we're enemies of feminism, and if we don't agree with you then we are totes pretending that sexism isn't a problem anywhere.

                this is turning into comedy at this point.

                anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

                by chopper on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 06:44:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you completely miss my point. it's not about being (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FogCityJohn

                  outraged at the tech writer.

                  it's about being in solidarity from someone of an oppressed class who is expressing that she thinks she just experienced a bit of that oppression.

                  why berate her and call her rude? people are interpreting her as rude, when I don't think her original email was intended to be rude. but, she is problematic when she interprets his writing as sexist. he gets the benefit of the doubt and she doesn't.

                  all the focus seems to be on her wording of "real work" rather than her feelings about how he responded to her. What I read in "real work" was, those of us who use this software intensely for our job and don't just spend a few hours with it for the sake of a review. She wasn't berating him, she was differentiating their perspectives on the software.

                  Worse, because everyone decided that she was rude, she is then told she should be appreciative that he responded to her at all.

                  First, I'm sure he doesn't respond to every email. So, why choose the one from the secretary and then turn around and school her. Particularly, when he's wrong about the points she's making. he could have easily said, "you have some good points, I wasn't reviewing it from that kind of user's point of view." Or he could have answered someone else's email.

                  When it comes to fighting oppression, one must always stand with the person in the oppressed group. It is the norm in a system of oppression for the one in the dominant group to always be afforded the benefit of the doubt and to perpetuate oppression by then knocking down the person who dares to call anything out.

                  All people accomplish when they nit pick a particular cry of mansplaining is to perpetuate an atmosphere where people are afraid to speak out.

                  In the big scheme of things, what difference does it make if one can look for ways in which the tech writer may not have been being sexist? Not one iota.

                  Go ahead and tell me how we have to be concerned about all the false accusations that will arise. Go ahead.....

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    it's about being in solidarity from someone of an oppressed class who is expressing that she thinks she just experienced a bit of that oppression.

                    sorry, but just because someone thinks someone's statement is insulting or offensive doesn't mean i'm going to automatically join that person.

                    likewise i don't automatically assume any random person's statement is anti-semitic just because a fellow jew says so. instead i actually look at what was written and decide for myself. but we're an oppressed class! yeah, that doesn't make anybody's accusations automatically genuine.

                    you seem to think that 'fighting oppression' means turning your critical-thinking skills off and just going with the crowd. i think that's a terrible way of fixing problems.

                    anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

                    by chopper on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 09:30:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  also (0+ / 0-)

                    why berate her and call her rude? people are interpreting her as rude, when I don't think her original email was intended to be rude. but, she is problematic when she interprets his writing as sexist. he gets the benefit of the doubt and she doesn't.

                    because i think her original email was rude. you don't think so, but i do. that's called 'a difference of opinion'.

                    and if you start out rude to someone, you can't expect their response to be detailed and thoughtful. likewise, i see him glossing over her email and missing the point she was trying to make. that certainly makes him seem a bit dense, but it doesn't automatically become sexism just because she's a woman any more than it would automatically be racism if she were african-american.

                    anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

                    by chopper on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 09:40:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  thank you for 'splaining', yet again (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LaEscapee, FogCityJohn

                      polite is a tool of the upper classes. keeps everybody in check.

                      She wasn't rude. She was distinguishing her level of use of the software from his and then issuing complaints about how the software got worse for people who use it at her level.

                      But, since she wasn't all deferent and bolstering of his ego and careful to express appreciation for him before she handed out her criticisms, she was rude.

                      thank you for being another great model of how the Protocol works.

                      And, no, I don't turn off my critical thinking skills. I apply them in a more in-depth way than a surface critique of an interaction as though it is not in the context of an entire culture.

                      I have not advocated that we all go around affirming that he mansplained. I have simply advocated that it serves no purpose to pick apart her complaint of her experience, other than to ensure that people feel utterly uncomfortable and are deterred from making complaints in the future.

                      Women experience mansplaining 24/7. We don't report every experience. Sometimes, we may experience it and others can't see it in that particular example. So what. Leave her alone. She didn't hurt anyone. (Somehow, I don't think Mr. Tech Writer is off at his therapist traumatized over her emails.) Why the vigilant need to make sure she understands that you don't agree that it was a good enough example? What's the fear behind needing to pounce on that? And which societal dynamics does your pouncing serve? I submit that it serves the embedded system of misogyny.

                      When your fellow Jews experience anti-semitism and you don't see it, your people might be best served by your silence. The oppressive class of non-Jews is not going to be damaged by a false accusation here or there. If you feel that your comrade is doing your people a disservice, you might try speaking to that person in private, rather than publicly berating. Publicly berating and disagreeing only serves to divide your solidarity and strengthen the oppressors.

                      But then, I'm just a woman who gives up her critical thinking when I'm so emotionally overwrought by my hyper-sensitive, and clearly wrong, mansplaining radar. So, my insights on these things are probably not to be considered valid. You probably should make sure to publicly rebut every point I make, just so the universe won't be living with an unanswered false assessment. that would be the real injustice.

                      •  see (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ChurchofBruce, cryonaut
                        When your fellow Jews experience anti-semitism and you don't see it, your people might be best served by your silence.
                        not at all. it doesn't help when people get away with accusing anyone of anti-semitism for any reason they can think of. that isn't a good thing.

                        but thank you for goy-splaining it all to me. good to know you're here to tell me the 'protocol'. how else should us jews act?

                        anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

                        by chopper on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 11:35:12 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  also (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ChurchofBruce, cryonaut
                        The oppressive class of non-Jews is not going to be damaged by a false accusation here or there. If you feel that your comrade is doing your people a disservice, you might try speaking to that person in private, rather than publicly berating. Publicly berating and disagreeing only serves to divide your solidarity and strengthen the oppressors.
                        'the oppressive class of non-jews' may not be harmed much by false accusations of anti-semitism, but it sure as shit doesn't help the jews. it only weakens the case to be made when actual anti-semitism exists. you even see it here, when there's a diary critical of israel's policies and everyone is all 'oh noes, someone's going to call me an anti-semite LOL'.

                        when someone coughs up a false accusation of anti-semitism, it isn't my job as a jew to automatically stand by them because he or she is jewish, nor to attack gentiles who (gasp!) point out that it's a fasle accusation. if it's false it's false, and i'm not standing by a falsehood because the person who coughs it up looks like me or worships the same god.

                        anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

                        by chopper on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 12:14:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I doubt he would have responded (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cryonaut

                    if he thought he was wrong. I'm not sure that using the fact that he was wrong makes any difference when determining whether his response was sexist. If he had been right, would the manner of his response have been justified?

                    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

                    by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 01:04:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  It's the condescension that's the problem. and (15+ / 0-)

              that isn't a tiny issue. And you bloody know that. But then you're precisely the sort Una is talking about.

              FYI, I USED to be a secretary with a double master's and a Phi Beta Kappa key. There were a lot of us in my generation. And we know asshole when we see it.  I was a secretary to someone at NAB (Natl Association of Broadcasters). Back in the mid 70s.  I was typing, filing AND writing copy and articles for their anti-pay cable campaign.  They were bringing in a guy (whose nly qualification seemed to be having a penis and a year of selling radio time in a small market area) to be the Sst. Director. Of course, I had the two grad degrees, was writing articles (which he couldn't) and knew about the campaign inside and out.  But they couldn't promote ME because the broadcasters couldn't handle  "a pretty little girl like you" actually doing the job--even though I'd be doing the writing this idiot couldn't do--and I was gonna be paid HALF what the dimwit with a penis was getting.  

              A month later I quit after I met him. He was a James O'
              Keefe type--or the sort of jerk who was such a prick to Frankenoid.

              You don't get how tired we are of men like that. And that is a HUGE issue.

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 08:23:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  And your little rant is somehow interesting? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          UnaSpenser

          I voted for the human beings.

          by denig on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 10:38:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  And you are extremely rude with this comment! (3+ / 0-)

      I haven't yet read what this diary refers to but I do not need to in order to explain to you why your comment it offensive, rude and 'dickish', as Kos would say.

      It might well be about nonsense but saying so invalidates the feelings of the person making the complaint. Invalidating someone's view, feelings or opinions belittles them. You shove them beneath you. Feel like a big honkin' deal now?? Makes you special?

      Made a bunch of people think your an idiot and jerk.

      Better is to acknowledge their feelings. You may even offer what you feel about it but that is all. Let them decide for themselves to agree or disagree. Otherwise, you are just projecting what you want them to feel.

      I am much too liberal to be a Democrat.

      by WiseFerret on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 08:54:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't agree with much of what you wrote (0+ / 0-)

        However spending some time in this diary made me do some thinking from a different perspective in order to understand some of the unjustified (in my view) reactions. Sometimes it's good to expand your mind for a thought experiment and try to understand why different people are the way they are.

    •  Complaining about sexism is nonsense? (6+ / 0-)

      Because in case you missed it, that's what the other diary was about.  The impetus for the other diarist's post was an exchange of e-mails she had with a male tech writer about a subject the diarist obviously knows well.  But the diary isn't about Microsoft Office.  It's about the diarist being dismissed by the writer because the person writing to him was a "mere" secretary named Franki.

      So now here you are, saying that all this is "nonsense."  I think you probably should have stayed out of it, but since you decided to step in, you might make an effort to listen to what the female users here have to say about sexism.  See, since they've been dealing with it all their lives, it's a subject they know well.  Unsurprisingly, they know it a lot better than you do.  (Just like African-Americans know a lot more about racism than we white folks do.)  Their experience has given them antennae that can detect sexism that might be invisible to us men.  Try to respect that, okay?  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 09:36:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh sh$t Una, you've outdone yourself this time! (10+ / 0-)

    Wheeeeeeee!

    As of this morning November 7, 2012 the Includers are ascendant, and the Excluders are in the minority. [samsoneyes]

    by FlamingoGrrl on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:46:50 PM PDT

  •  This is a RIGHTEOUS rant that will (11+ / 0-)

    stay with me forever. ( Only because I live with parrots who laugh when I do and agree I'm right.  Even the male.)

    This reminds me of endless numbers of Serious Talks with husband 2.  I've been single so long I can't remember why I bothered.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:57:04 PM PDT

  •  Well this is refreshing! Tipped and Rec'd. (9+ / 0-)

    I voted for the human beings.

    by denig on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 08:15:31 PM PDT

  •  Is there a way to trash a thread here? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut

    250 comments, later, it's perfectly clear that nobody in the ORIGINAL thread is going to change their mind; and apparently that discussion just wasn't enough, so no we have a SECOND thread complaining that the people in the first thread aren't being properly understood or respected.  I'm going to bed, unless that's seen as sexist and condescending.

  •  I left that diary because the comments became (10+ / 0-)

    worse than the original insult.

    Well, that and the knowledge that nothing was going to enlighten those who don't want to know.

    We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty - Edward R. Murrow

    by Susan Grigsby on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 09:18:38 PM PDT

    •  Oooh, your comment just gave me a great idea (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Themistoclea, RiveroftheWest

      We could add a little science to this. We should have a man who is not a secretary write an email addressing the same technical terms. We should also have another secretary bring up the same problems, but filter "her" email to ditch anything that might be viewed as rude or condescending. Of course these people don't have to be real, but it would be interesting to what differences we might get in response. Of course the more this issue is brought up, the more likely he is to get a clue. Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.

  •  thanks and lol @ Mansplain Meter (5+ / 0-)
    Until male scientists develop the penis-shaped Mansplain Meter which can identify and measure the intensity of a mansplanation
    Just that description alone may make be illeagal in some states! ;)

    Don't trust anyone over 84414

    by BentLiberal on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 11:06:00 PM PDT

  •  Um... No where in your initial letter (0+ / 0-)

    did you mention you were a woman. I assume, therefore, your email address suggested it. Otherwise you'd be getting upset at someone treating you like a woman while assuming that they'd assume you were a woman because you were a secretary. And that'd be ridiculous.

    Anyway, I think writing walls of text to reviewers is kind of pointless. I'm pretty sure he was more trying to brush you off rather than explain anything. Writing walls of text complaining about a program to someone who was given that program to use for a week or two, as an assignment, and write a review of it is, in my opinion, misdirected effort. You should be complaining to Microsoft... Of course, that is pointless, too, since they are big enough to ignore customer concerns and do whatever they want.

    If you're forced by your employer to use this version of office, then I am truly sorry. If you aren't then I suggest exploring the possibility of using some alternatives.

    "...So the world might be mended"

    by Cofcos on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 01:37:10 AM PDT

    •  um, I didn't write the letter. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn, poco

      but thanks for 'splainin' things for me.

    •  But this is precisely the point! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, UnaSpenser
      I'm pretty sure he was more trying to brush you off rather than explain anything.

      Why did he feel the need to "brush her off"?  If he felt her criticisms weren't valid, or he didn't have a lot of time, he could simply have left her e-mail unanswered.  

      As for your first point, the other diarist explained in her comments that her gender was apparent from the contact information, which appeared at the bottom of her e-mails.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 04:51:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would be open to calling this mansplaining, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego

    except that I've gotten the same type of non-answers from women.  The key seems to be that the other person, male or female, is trained in explaining the software, not in working with it. Since the question you're asking doesn't fit into the knowledge they've got, they assume that you are asking the wrong questions, and try to answer the question you should have asked - i.e., the one they've learned the answer to.

    And yes, it does sound condescending, no matter who's doing it, but I count it as a failure in knowledge more than an attempt to belittle me.  And a failure on Microsoft's part more than on the part of the author, because Microsoft doesn't generally refer to previous features which have been left out of an update when it's publishing background information on the update.  New features, yes.  "Things we've left out this time", no.  And very few software reviewers can afford to have in-depth knowledge of any given package, which is a shame and a pity from the viewpoint of the people who most need that knowledge.

    I'm probably too late to make any difference with this comment, both for this diary and the other, but I thought it was worth saying.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh....

    by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 01:57:12 AM PDT

    •  women can be misogynists. it's about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn

      perpetuating a system of patriarchy, not about being of a specific gender.

      that said, I didn't write the letter. I am not the author of the other diary.

      the Tech Writer could have opted out of responding that email. He most likely doesn't respond to every single email. So, why choose one from a secretary and then try to tell said secretary that her complaints are invalid. particularly when he doesn't even address her actual complaints.

      I know that in this angelic world of absolute equal treatment to women, one must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the underlying energy to this man's responses was grounded in patriarchy. Still, it is reasonable to think that he saw 'secretary' and unconsciously intuited the female gender and that his tone and disrespect and sudden lack of reading comprehension (he is a writer, after all, one would expect him to be able to comprehend what is written) might have something to do with that.

      But, you know, since we can't Prove it, we should probably berate the woman for even having the thought.

      •  Whoa, please. I understand (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        where both you and the original diarist are coming from - I've had it done to me enough times to get really, really angry about it.  And I was an engineer at a time when women just didn't ever become engineers.  The number of times I've been told I shouldn't even hold the job I did, because I was taking the place of a man with a wife and family to support - well, it still triggers some major irk.

        In this instance, though, I was responding from a history of interacting with tech support for software - both using it and being it.  When your work status is tied in to your supposed knowledge of a product, it becomes harder to admit that gaps in that knowledge are of any major concern.  The best will always be willing to say they don't know the answer when that's true, but that leaves the other 90 percent playing this kind of game, no matter what gender they may be.

        Frankenoid may very well have been the victim of a misogynistic idiot, or maybe just of standard tech ignorance and hubris, which crosses gender barriers really easily.  The point is that I don't know, and the replies she got seemed to me to point to the second case.

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh....

        by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 02:02:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the bigger point is that when a member of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AaronInSanDiego

          an oppressed group cries out about an experience, it is damaging to put her on trial for whether her example is one you can affirm or not.

          the oppression doesn't happen in a courtroom. it happens every day, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. There is an embedded coding system in communications designed to be resistant to the seeing the harm in an evidentiary hearing. Yet, when a member of the oppressed group cries out, that person is put under the evidentiary microscope and shot down for having the poor judgment to use an example others don't deem worthy. It's a game the oppressed can never win. Supposed comrades who play into the tactic are actually propping up the game.

          why even bother making statements about how you don't necessarily see it in this example? all that does is make sure that everybody understands that the evidentiary bar is very high for making complaints against oppressors. it is another mechanism in the perpetuation of the oppression.

          don't like the example? stay out of the conversation. don't lend a hand to the oppressor class by invalidating a member of the oppressed.

    •  Maybe part of the issue is (0+ / 0-)

      starting from the assumption that he is right and therefore she must be wrong, rather than considering that she may know something he doesn't. It seems prudent to always consider the possibility that another person knows something you don't, even if you think of yourself as an expert. It seems that our cultural history has made this sort of attitude more common and reinforced in men than in women.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 01:20:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the nyt jerk behaved/disgracefully.eos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser

    Monsanto is poison, they gotta be stopped.

    by renzo capetti on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 02:45:19 AM PDT

  •  Just saw this article... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UnaSpenser, Dixiedemocrat, poco

    ... about Ted Cruz' mansplaining gun rights to Sen. Feinstein, thought it might add to the discussion - especially the conclusion:

    Newcomers like Cruz can learn a lot by listening to veterans like Feinstein, as well as other senior colleagues in both parties. But that requires shutting up first.

    Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

    by Hey338Too on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:18:29 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site