WS 2012 Sandbox: ws in the sand

I pretty much hate all words that do that type of thing though, "mansplain", "bromance", "manscaping", like worst trend ever.

Do you hate all neologisms, or just the ones that draw attention to previously unremarked areas of male behaviour?

Definitely somewhere between the two.

definitely a sexist kind of marketing driven application of "man-" to all kinds of things, to make clear that it's ok for men to do it or have it.

but that's not really of the same species as "mansplain"

i.e. I don't hate all neologisms, I just hate "cutesy" (for lack of a better word) ones that are most often used to describe a new cultural trend that really isn't a new cultural trend at all

Fair enough. Because I tend to reserve my hatred for neologisms like "vagazzle" and shit like that - because on your latter count, you know, I just feel a bit "welcome to our world"

Well yeah it just sorta happened that all of the examples that popped into my head were of the, "OMG men do this too" variety.

I'm not sure the concepts of bromances and manscaping and so on were unremarked on before - bromance is just a dumb and conceivably offensive ('it's so not GAY, god no') take on male friendships, isn't it?

bags are for women, men have "manbags"
hair removal is for women, men have to "manscape"

etc.

anything conceivably feminine has to be (semi-jokingly, lest you be led to think seriously about it at all) re-named to be man-suitable.

You know what? I'll make a deal. We'll take manbag and manscape and bromance away if you can get rid of "actress" and "lady doctor" and "female musician" and every other damn ugly phrase that gets applied to women and only women? Kay? x

i'm not arguing with you? i think these terms originate from the same place

fwiw I just posted this on the girls thread as to why the term bugs me a lot

x-post - It just seems to me to imply that it's something that all and only men do which I don't think is actually the case. That's why I was saying that I'd prefer a term like FT was suggesting. One that encapsulates the phenomenon as FT stated above and doesn't seem so damning and exclusive.

Yeah, I kind of feel like that (entirely justified) vitriol is aimed at the wrong people here?

xxxp - I don't see how any of those are akin to neologisms that are designed to make cultural prejudices against being perceived as feminine or gay okay (manbags, etc.). Actress? I don't know how that can conceivably be offensive.

Goole, I don't think these terms actually do originate from "the same place." Or at least, not in the same way?

Because I think that the "lady X" and "-ess" terms come from a place of diminishing and othering women because we can't have or be the ~real~ thing.

While the "Man-" terms - perhaps they come from a marketing perspective? But I guess that is the same place, because the whole reason that men have to have a ~special~ Man-thing rather than just a thing (associated with women) is because the association with ~women~ and ~what women do~ is considered so awful and icky that a dude who wouldn't be caught dead carrying a handbag feels OK carrying a Manbag?

But then that's all that "marketing of masculinity" stuff which comes from the same place of OMG gender panic, so if that's what you mean by "coming from the same place" then yes they are.

Anyway, I really think that someone needs to post a picture of an attractive person quite soon because this is quite a derail. I'm not allowed to post any more Thoms so Pyth or CO, do you have anyone to add?

I never post anyone but Steve McQueen, so you can just imagine another Bullit still here if you like.

"cultural prejudices against being perceived as feminine or gay" = based on the idea that being feminine sucks = sexism

Judging women on their femaleness first (as in the case of "actress") and their ~stuff they do~ second (with a side order of men = real thing, women = weird special lady thing) = also sexism

No, I think that part of me is hibernating or something right now. I can't think of anyone. I guess that hot picture of Paul Newman is my go to but I can't be bothered GISing it now so

HOT PAUL NEWMAN PIC HERE

my fucking head is killing me

Ok here

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0vddi9GZe1qbxep8o1_400.jpg

omg I feel a lot better now

How about Lemmy and Stacia? I would happily smash either of them in those days.

http://www.angel.dk/hawkwind/store/HawkStaA_02A.jpg

Hott dudes = better than yoga at making heads not hurt. Proven by science.

lol

Judging women on their femaleness first (as in the case of "actress") and their

Milo, there's this whole book by Dale Spender, called Man Made Language about ~exactly~ this issue. Perhaps you could read it, and digest some of its points about the way language is used to constrain women (and also men but mostly, problematically, women) before you attempt to "mansplain" "gender" in "language" to me, OK? Thanks.

enough of the girltalk in this thread.

There is an intrinsic judgement in mansplain, manbag, etc. (that can be sexist against women - or against men) that does not exist in "actress" or "lady doctor." Lady doctor or female musician can be diminutive, but that derives from the context of whatever else is said ('female musicians can only be bass players' or w/e) - identification by gender is not inherently judgemental.

Actress, more than the others, is a strange word to bring up in this argument.

Not true. Like I said, read Dale Spender and get back to me. I really cannot have this conversation with you until you actually know what the hell you are talking about.

Or you could make the argument you're alluding to, rather than relying on authority.

What is sexist about 'actress,' beyond being gender-identified?
How does that work in languages where basic nouns have genders?

Never understood why there need to be actresses when I've never been to the doctress

bags are for women, men have "manbags"
hair removal is for women, men have to "manscape"

etc.

I'm conflicted on "man crush." On one hand, I like that it opens up the normal-guy discourse to intimations of homoeroticism. On the other hand, the word "man" does a lot of work in signifying that it's not a REAL crush.

Dear Milo: I am not ILX's personal Womens Studies Professor. There is like 30 or 40 years of research and documentation on this stuff that you would find if you just used your eyes. And what is just a fun entertaining diversion for a Friday afternoon is the stuff of my actual life. And I would rather spend that life looking at photos of Thom Yorke's belly.

Also, you are doing this, right here:

http://derailingfordummies.com/#educate2

That's just pretty shitty - you start the discussion, then appeal to authority, then claim I'm derailing.

Read what it says in the link. I have told you where to find the information you're asking for, you just want me to spoon feed it to you, instead of actually reading it, and I'm tired and I want to go home but I haven't finished my actual work because I've been having this conversation for the 10,000th time.

Post pictures of mostly naked women if you must, but don't let's be completely dense? She answered you. You aren't entitled to a crash course in why you're not checking your own privilege.

Kate, while I pretty much agree with you on the subject, I think it's bad form to first argue something (that those words are sexist), then when someone asks you to explain it, you just say "why don't you understand it, go read these books you fool!". If you're not willing to back up you arguments, you shouldn't bring them up in the first place.

(particularly given that we don't disagree nearly as much as you think we do)

"Go read this book" is not dialogue.

"explain 30 years of research to me in an afternoon" is not a dialogue either, Milo.

But, iirc, he wasn't asking for that, he was asking for you, personally, to explain your feelings/thoughts.

ie the disagreement is extremely narrow - the problematic nature of and how easily gender identification can be diminutive and sexist (lady doctor, male nurse) is undoubtedly true and certainly worth talking about, but you can't raise them as exact analogies to new neologisms that carry prejudices built into the word itself.

No one is asking for 30 years of research - you made an argument and are unwilling to discuss it in any way. You can't demand that I agree with you because you say so.

But, iirc, he wasn't asking for that, he was asking for you, personally, to explain your feelings/thoughts.

true, but I think K has already explained her feelings/thoughts!

She's not usually the bashful type

Could draw some lol parallels between womensstudiessplaining and mansplaining here, tbh. The privilege of perceived academic credentials abrogates any need for explanation beyond 'I said so.'

the problematic nature of and how easily gender identification can be diminutive and sexist (lady doctor, male nurse) is undoubtedly true and certainly worth talking about, but you can't raise them as exact analogies to new neologisms that carry prejudices built into the word itself.

I think "lady doctor" carries a prejudice (as well as male nurse) built into itself: the whole idea behind adding the lady prefix is that woman being a doctor is an exception from the male norm.

This would never have happened, Tuomas, if you'd known who Zooey Deschanel was

That can very easily be so - but it can also be innocuous. It is possible to use that language solely as a gender identifier, without malice or negativity. Maybe only a small percentage of time, and maybe even problematic in ways then, if you think that gender should be eliminated from conversation.
But there aren't innocuous uses of manbag or bromance that can be separated from the feminine/gay-panic angle - they're built into the words themselves.

Like I said, FT's reaction surprised me because my reading is that it's 95% agreement, aside from the analogy she drew.

It is possible to use that language solely as a gender identifier, without malice or negativity.

Maybe, yeah, but in this case there's no commonly used male equivalent to "lady doctor" or "female musician". If only one gender needs the identifier (because it's assumed to be an exception from the norm), then there's inherent prejudice in choosing to use those terms instead of just "doctor" or "musician".