Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

BRD-98
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:33 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BRD-98 »

Rafferty Barnes wrote:
Magna wrote:
BobF wrote:
BRD-98 wrote:I missed this controversy. Can someone give me a TL;DR? :oops:
He basically sent messages to quite a few women who appeared on the show. Some through here, some through Facebook. The messages were unwelcome and used some disturbing double entendre.
If I read correctly, at least one of the recipients was a minor. Is that right?
Yes, one was a former Kids Week contestant who is now 16. He would post comments on youtube videos, The Final Wager, newspaper articles, and twitter all using the format "Cyberial cigar uno for x for winning her nth game, well done my dear(lights x's portofino)." For each win, he would post another message, going up in spanish dos, tres, etc. On twitter, he would say "X should be seen smoking a cyberial cigar, sukkahs!" He would also send facebook messages to the female Jeopardy champions, tweet at any female who appeared on Jeopardy Live Panels whether she won or not, and would send messages to their e-mails. A few youtube comments reference that he knows where the champion lives. "Cyberial cigar" seems to be a phrase only used by him. Other places he has used it are on eHarmony's facebook page and in reference to Bill Cosby's rape victims. He's done this for the past 7-8 years.

I didn't even know that legendneverdies was Zach Horan here because Andy had it so every reference to "cyberial cigar" would automatically change to "normal cigar", and he had agreed to behave himself here. He was sending private messages to champions here, which is why alietr made the banning public to see if any other women had been contacted by him, since alietr doesn't have the power to see what was sent that way.
Interesting. Sorry you (edit: and others!) had to go through all this. :roll:

User avatar
BobF
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:03 pm
Location: Westmonster, MD
Contact:

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BobF »

BRD-98 wrote:
BobF wrote:
BRD-98 wrote:I missed this controversy. Can someone give me a TL;DR? :oops:
He basically sent messages to quite a few women who appeared on the show. Some through here, some through Facebook. The messages were unwelcome and used some disturbing double entendre.
Interesting. I've seen the word c-y-b-e-r-i-a-l cigar around quite a few online trivia venues now and wondered what it meant. Was it sort of like some misplaced chauvinism?

And nice sig. ;)
Speaking of which, if my signature offends anybody, please let me know and I'll change it. In addition to it showing that I want to be nothing like Zach, it does have personal significance for where I am in life right now.
Was once hugged by Maggie Speak!

User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Magna »

Thanks very much for the information. The scope of it wasn't clear to me. It sounds much worse than I even thought it was (and I thought it was pretty bad.)

BRD-98
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:33 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BRD-98 »

BobF wrote:
BRD-98 wrote:
BobF wrote:
BRD-98 wrote:I missed this controversy. Can someone give me a TL;DR? :oops:
He basically sent messages to quite a few women who appeared on the show. Some through here, some through Facebook. The messages were unwelcome and used some disturbing double entendre.
Interesting. I've seen the word c-y-b-e-r-i-a-l cigar around quite a few online trivia venues now and wondered what it meant. Was it sort of like some misplaced chauvinism?

And nice sig. ;)
Speaking of which, if my signature offends anybody, please let me know and I'll change it. In addition to it showing that I want to be nothing like Zach, it does have personal significance for where I am in life right now.
If I've learned anything from spending time on online communities, be careful what you put anywhere. Assume that if there's any possibility of offense being taken, assume that the offense will be taken... 10X over. My 2 cents

User avatar
alietr
Site Admin
Posts: 7017
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by alietr »

BobF wrote:It would be great if the admins had access to the metadata about private messages. So if one user was sending a very high number of messages relative to the other users, it would allow them to know sooner if there is something like this going on.
I would certainly hope that this has been a unique situation, and such an ability would never be needed again.

BRD-98
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:33 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BRD-98 »

zakharov wrote:
Vanya wrote:Beautiful women don't want to be objectified. Plus size women consider being objectified a breakthrough for them (Ok, maybe just the marketing people do that).

"Everyone should be celebrated objectified."

https://screen.yahoo.com/style/plus-siz ... 08336.html
You're literally telling women how they feel. This is the purest distillation of mansplaining I've ever seen.
Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?

Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Vanya »

BRD-98 wrote:
Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Answer: You couldn't understand it anyway.
Question:
Spoiler
What is womansplaining?

mahatma
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:52 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by mahatma »

BRD-98 wrote:Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Not defending the original sentiment at all, but 'mansplaining' is an unnecessary word for which 'condescending' or 'patronizing' would work just fine, without ascribing those characteristics to half the population.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7266
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by opusthepenguin »

mahatma wrote:
BRD-98 wrote:Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Not defending the original sentiment at all, but 'mansplaining' is an unnecessary word for which 'condescending' or 'patronizing' would work just fine, without ascribing those characteristics to half the population.
Why keep those words when we already have ungood, plus, and doubleplus?

User avatar
gnash
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1678
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by gnash »

BRD-98 wrote: Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Without the last 8 words, yes.

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7266
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by opusthepenguin »

gnash wrote:
BRD-98 wrote: Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Without the last 8 words, yes.
I don't want to start a long debate. But I'd like to register a dissenting opinion. The subject of this thread makes this a good if risky place to do so. We've just found out that many female contestants who visit JBoard have had a different experience from the male ones. We're unhappy about that and we sympathize. We men can't really empathize, though. What we can do, hopefully, is hear and respect. We'd like to think that this harassment was an isolated incident and that in general women boardies have the same experience as men. What we're hearing is that this isn't so. (We should know this by now; but it's easy to forget for those who have that luxury.) The harassment was just one aspect of a miasma of cultural experiences to which women can readily testify. "Mansplaining" teases out another aspect.

I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice. I guarantee you every woman on this board has at least seen it happen and probably had it happen to her. I guarantee you've seen it happen too, but it may not have made an impression on you. Or if it did, it may have seemed condescension of a more general sort. You may not have noticed that the man did not speak with similar condescension to other men. (If he's an equal-opportunity know-it-all, it's not "mansplaining".)

The gender-specific component of "mansplaining" helps target the double standard. It reminds us that we still live in a world where it is easier for a man to gain respect for his opinion than for a woman to do so. And it brings out the nuance that some men unconsciously and complacently reinforce that disparity even if they officially support equality.

"Condescending" lacks those nuances and hence applies to a broader range of behavior. It's a fine word, but not an exact synonym. "Patronizing" comes closer. But most people will not recognize the subtle appropriateness in the etymology. Plus, it doesn't address the specific situation where a man reflexively assumes relative ignorance on the woman's part and seeks to enlighten her.

I'm sure there are also some women who will talk down to a man but not to another woman. Aggrieved men are free to coin a term for this. I'd recommend something other than "womansplaining". That's just lazy, and it suggests the situations are exactly parallel. They're not. Women do not complacently benefit from a position of relative social power that has been reinforced over centuries.[**] Whatever term gets coined, it could catch on. But only if the phenomenon is pervasive enough. That's what happened with "mansplain". Enough people recognized the situation that the word became useful. I don't feel the need for "womansplain" or any other word with that meaning. I'm not sure when I would have occasion to use it. "Mansplaining," on the other hand? I see that $#@! all the time.

------------------
[*] Hat tip to Linear Gnome for reminding me of that connection in an earlier post.

[**] I didn't feel like trying to spell milllllennnnnnia.

User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Magna »

opusthepenguin wrote:I'm sure there are also some women who will talk down to a man but not to another woman. Aggrieved men are free to coin a term for this.
I think this kind of thing happens to pretty much every group of people - though not necessarily with the same frequency or in the same way. I think it's probably our flawed human nature to think our group has the right perspective and some other group is wrong. But that doesn't mean we have to accept it or that we can't do something about it - we limit or control other antisocial behaviors, and we can do something about this too.

User avatar
BigDaddyMatty
Save Me, Maggie!
Posts: 2983
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Wherever I May Roam
Contact:

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BigDaddyMatty »

opusthepenguin wrote:
gnash wrote:
BRD-98 wrote: Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Without the last 8 words, yes.
I don't want to start a long debate. But I'd like to register a dissenting opinion. The subject of this thread makes this a good if risky place to do so. We've just found out that many female contestants who visit JBoard have had a different experience from the male ones. We're unhappy about that and we sympathize. We men can't really empathize, though. What we can do, hopefully, is hear and respect. We'd like to think that this harassment was an isolated incident and that in general women boardies have the same experience as men. What we're hearing is that this isn't so. (We should know this by now; but it's easy to forget for those who have that luxury.) The harassment was just one aspect of a miasma of cultural experiences to which women can readily testify. "Mansplaining" teases out another aspect.

I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice. I guarantee you every woman on this board has at least seen it happen and probably had it happen to her. I guarantee you've seen it happen too, but it may not have made an impression on you. Or if it did, it may have seemed condescension of a more general sort. You may not have noticed that the man did not speak with similar condescension to other men. (If he's an equal-opportunity know-it-all, it's not "mansplaining".)

The gender-specific component of "mansplaining" helps target the double standard. It reminds us that we still live in a world where it is easier for a man to gain respect for his opinion than for a woman to do so. And it brings out the nuance that some men unconsciously and complacently reinforce that disparity even if they officially support equality.

"Condescending" lacks those nuances and hence applies to a broader range of behavior. It's a fine word, but not an exact synonym. "Patronizing" comes closer. But most people will not recognize the subtle appropriateness in the etymology. Plus, it doesn't address the specific situation where a man reflexively assumes relative ignorance on the woman's part and seeks to enlighten her.

I'm sure there are also some women who will talk down to a man but not to another woman. Aggrieved men are free to coin a term for this. I'd recommend something other than "womansplaining". That's just lazy, and it suggests the situations are exactly parallel. They're not. Women do not complacently benefit from a position of relative social power that has been reinforced over centuries.[**] Whatever term gets coined, it could catch on. But only if the phenomenon is pervasive enough. That's what happened with "mansplain". Enough people recognized the situation that the word became useful. I don't feel the need for "womansplain" or any other word with that meaning. I'm not sure when I would have occasion to use it. "Mansplaining," on the other hand? I see that $#@! all the time.

------------------
[*] Hat tip to Linear Gnome for reminding me of that connection in an earlier post.

[**] I didn't feel like trying to spell milllllennnnnnia.
This is fine inasmuch as it describes the situation to which the epithet in question is applied. What I have seen more often than not, though, is that "mansplaining" is used as a cudgel to shut down discussion in situations where a man and a woman have differing opinions on a contentious issue.
Sprinkles are for winners.

User avatar
zakharov
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 7:27 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by zakharov »

If you, a man, are telling a woman how she does or should feel about something, that's one example of mansplaining. There are many, many other examples. It's particularly endemic in the world of sports, where female journalists and fans who have been watching for most of their lives get to deal with dullards condescendingly explaining what a strikeout is.
4-time pool swimmer - last audition June 2019
Follow me on Twitter @JakeMHS

User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Magna »

On a PBS special on race last night, I heard a person of one race/ethnicity explaining what people of a different race/ethnicity feel and think. (I'm leaving out the races/ethnicities here, because I think it doesn't, or at least shouldn't matter.) I don't know if there's a particular name for that, but it's the kind of thing that commonly happens. It happens with gender, and with other types of groups as well.

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Jeopardy! TOCer
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Rex Kramer »

Magna wrote:On a PBS special on race last night, I heard a person of one race/ethnicity explaining what people of a different race/ethnicity feel and think. (I'm leaving out the races/ethnicities here, because I think it doesn't, or at least shouldn't matter.) I don't know if there's a particular name for that, but it's the kind of thing that commonly happens. It happens with gender, and with other types of groups as well.
Your wording left room for question: Who was the explainer explaining to?

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong about an Explainer from Group A, explaining to another person from Group A, Explainer's understanding of how people from Group B feel and think, so long as Explainer has some rational basis for it. I lived in Japan for a few years, so when an American friend comments upon Japanese behavior he or she finds strange, I see no reason why I shouldn't share the understanding I gained from prolonged interaction with the culture. I would advise anyone in the position of listening to me, or to anyone else with a similar opinion about a Group B, to exercise good judgment in deciding how much of what I or anyone else says about Group B -- it may or may not be well informed, it may or may not be tainted by positive or negative bias, etc. But a blanket ban against sharing what we have learned seems, to me, counterproductive.

Of course, the situation is different if Explainer from Group A is trying to tell person from Group B about how people from Group B feel and think. Explainer would be presumptuous to assume that Explainer generally knows better than anyone from Group B.

On the third hand, sometimes people with a different perspective see things that in-Group people can't see so readily. de Tocqueville's writings on America are still considered insightful, and not the presumptuous braying of an ignorant Frenchy. Goodness knows that women constitute a large proportion of the people explaining to men that, no matter how open-minded they think they are, their thinking is not free from privileged condescension. If there were a blanket rule that people from Group A had nothing valuable to say to people from Group B about what people from Group B are thinking, it would be intellectual apartheid, and not to the benefit of anyone currently disempowered.

What we are really talking about here is not what people are capable of understanding about those from other groups, but what they are willing to understand. "I am human, and nothing of that which is human is alien to me."

Rex

BRD-98
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:33 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BRD-98 »

I hoping this stays lighthearted enough — I don't want to be blamed for starting a flame war.
opusthepenguin wrote:
gnash wrote:
BRD-98 wrote: Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Without the last 8 words, yes.
I don't want to start a long debate. But I'd like to register a dissenting opinion. The subject of this thread makes this a good if risky place to do so. We've just found out that many female contestants who visit JBoard have had a different experience from the male ones. We're unhappy about that and we sympathize. We men can't really empathize, though. What we can do, hopefully, is hear and respect. We'd like to think that this harassment was an isolated incident and that in general women boardies have the same experience as men. What we're hearing is that this isn't so. (We should know this by now; but it's easy to forget for those who have that luxury.) The harassment was just one aspect of a miasma of cultural experiences to which women can readily testify. "Mansplaining" teases out another aspect.

I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice. I guarantee you every woman on this board has at least seen it happen and probably had it happen to her. I guarantee you've seen it happen too, but it may not have made an impression on you. Or if it did, it may have seemed condescension of a more general sort. You may not have noticed that the man did not speak with similar condescension to other men. (If he's an equal-opportunity know-it-all, it's not "mansplaining".)

The gender-specific component of "mansplaining" helps target the double standard. It reminds us that we still live in a world where it is easier for a man to gain respect for his opinion than for a woman to do so. And it brings out the nuance that some men unconsciously and complacently reinforce that disparity even if they officially support equality.

"Condescending" lacks those nuances and hence applies to a broader range of behavior. It's a fine word, but not an exact synonym. "Patronizing" comes closer. But most people will not recognize the subtle appropriateness in the etymology. Plus, it doesn't address the specific situation where a man reflexively assumes relative ignorance on the woman's part and seeks to enlighten her.

I'm sure there are also some women who will talk down to a man but not to another woman. Aggrieved men are free to coin a term for this. I'd recommend something other than "womansplaining". That's just lazy, and it suggests the situations are exactly parallel. They're not. Women do not complacently benefit from a position of relative social power that has been reinforced over centuries.[**] Whatever term gets coined, it could catch on. But only if the phenomenon is pervasive enough. That's what happened with "mansplain". Enough people recognized the situation that the word became useful. I don't feel the need for "womansplain" or any other word with that meaning. I'm not sure when I would have occasion to use it. "Mansplaining," on the other hand? I see that $#@! all the time.

------------------
[*] Hat tip to Linear Gnome for reminding me of that connection in an earlier post.

[**] I didn't feel like trying to spell milllllennnnnnia.
Point missed, or at least if you were referring to what I said. Mansplaining, as BigDaddyMatty has said (and this comes from my own personal experience with politically correct classmates, as well), is more often than not used as a cudgel to shield women from criticism of their particular views, especially if it has to do with gender or social justice. From my understanding (and the OED's, which this year added it to their list along with "manspreading," interestingly), "mansplaining" involves a man explaining to (typically) a woman how to do something or how it works, therefore suggesting that it is patronizing and not nuanced enough because he is a man. THAT is the ad hominem. Some people take it even further, as zakharov unfortunately did, and attempt to invalidate an argument by calling "mansplaining," which is like some horrible beast of a double ad hominem.
zakharov wrote:If you, a man, are telling a woman how she does or should feel about something, that's one example of mansplaining. There are many, many other examples. It's particularly endemic in the world of sports, where female journalists and fans who have been watching for most of their lives get to deal with dullards condescendingly explaining what a strikeout is.
Does this too "lack nuance," opusthepenguin? :twisted:

In all seriousness, if a man telling a woman how she does or should feel about something is "mansplaining," then is a (TIME 100) woman telling a man how to properly express his masculinity "womansplaining?"

*backpedaling intensifies*

User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 7266
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by opusthepenguin »

BRD-98 wrote:I hoping this stays lighthearted enough — I don't want to be blamed for starting a flame war.
opusthepenguin wrote:
gnash wrote:
BRD-98 wrote: Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Without the last 8 words, yes.
Spoiler
I don't want to start a long debate. But I'd like to register a dissenting opinion. The subject of this thread makes this a good if risky place to do so. We've just found out that many female contestants who visit JBoard have had a different experience from the male ones. We're unhappy about that and we sympathize. We men can't really empathize, though. What we can do, hopefully, is hear and respect. We'd like to think that this harassment was an isolated incident and that in general women boardies have the same experience as men. What we're hearing is that this isn't so. (We should know this by now; but it's easy to forget for those who have that luxury.) The harassment was just one aspect of a miasma of cultural experiences to which women can readily testify. "Mansplaining" teases out another aspect.

I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice. I guarantee you every woman on this board has at least seen it happen and probably had it happen to her. I guarantee you've seen it happen too, but it may not have made an impression on you. Or if it did, it may have seemed condescension of a more general sort. You may not have noticed that the man did not speak with similar condescension to other men. (If he's an equal-opportunity know-it-all, it's not "mansplaining".)

The gender-specific component of "mansplaining" helps target the double standard. It reminds us that we still live in a world where it is easier for a man to gain respect for his opinion than for a woman to do so. And it brings out the nuance that some men unconsciously and complacently reinforce that disparity even if they officially support equality.

"Condescending" lacks those nuances and hence applies to a broader range of behavior. It's a fine word, but not an exact synonym. "Patronizing" comes closer. But most people will not recognize the subtle appropriateness in the etymology. Plus, it doesn't address the specific situation where a man reflexively assumes relative ignorance on the woman's part and seeks to enlighten her.

I'm sure there are also some women who will talk down to a man but not to another woman. Aggrieved men are free to coin a term for this. I'd recommend something other than "womansplaining". That's just lazy, and it suggests the situations are exactly parallel. They're not. Women do not complacently benefit from a position of relative social power that has been reinforced over centuries.[**] Whatever term gets coined, it could catch on. But only if the phenomenon is pervasive enough. That's what happened with "mansplain". Enough people recognized the situation that the word became useful. I don't feel the need for "womansplain" or any other word with that meaning. I'm not sure when I would have occasion to use it. "Mansplaining," on the other hand? I see that $#@! all the time.

------------------
[*] Hat tip to Linear Gnome for reminding me of that connection in an earlier post.

[**] I didn't feel like trying to spell milllllennnnnnia.
Point missed, or at least if you were referring to what I said. Mansplaining, as BigDaddyMatty has said (and this comes from my own personal experience with politically correct classmates, as well), is more often than not used as a cudgel to shield women from criticism of their particular views, especially if it has to do with gender or social justice.
"More often than not." I didn't catch that nuance when you wrote "accusing someone of 'mansplaining' [is] just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack." I responded by pointing out that this is not always the case and there can be legitimate uses. If we agree about that, there's no argument.

We do disagree on Zakharov's use. I felt it was not only appropriate but the mot juste. It described the situation exactly.

BRD-98
Loyal Jeopardista
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:33 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by BRD-98 »

opusthepenguin wrote:
BRD-98 wrote:I hoping this stays lighthearted enough — I don't want to be blamed for starting a flame war.
opusthepenguin wrote:
gnash wrote:
BRD-98 wrote: Is it just me, or is accusing someone of "mansplaining" just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack that is somehow recognized as a legitimate attack?
Without the last 8 words, yes.
Spoiler
I don't want to start a long debate. But I'd like to register a dissenting opinion. The subject of this thread makes this a good if risky place to do so. We've just found out that many female contestants who visit JBoard have had a different experience from the male ones. We're unhappy about that and we sympathize. We men can't really empathize, though. What we can do, hopefully, is hear and respect. We'd like to think that this harassment was an isolated incident and that in general women boardies have the same experience as men. What we're hearing is that this isn't so. (We should know this by now; but it's easy to forget for those who have that luxury.) The harassment was just one aspect of a miasma of cultural experiences to which women can readily testify. "Mansplaining" teases out another aspect.

I think "mansplaining" is a useful if inelegantly constructed word. (The inelegance even gives it a certain charm, invests it with the ghost of Ricky Ricardo.[*]) The term points to a recognizable social phenomenon. It does not, by the way, tar all men, only those who engage in the practice. I guarantee you every woman on this board has at least seen it happen and probably had it happen to her. I guarantee you've seen it happen too, but it may not have made an impression on you. Or if it did, it may have seemed condescension of a more general sort. You may not have noticed that the man did not speak with similar condescension to other men. (If he's an equal-opportunity know-it-all, it's not "mansplaining".)

The gender-specific component of "mansplaining" helps target the double standard. It reminds us that we still live in a world where it is easier for a man to gain respect for his opinion than for a woman to do so. And it brings out the nuance that some men unconsciously and complacently reinforce that disparity even if they officially support equality.

"Condescending" lacks those nuances and hence applies to a broader range of behavior. It's a fine word, but not an exact synonym. "Patronizing" comes closer. But most people will not recognize the subtle appropriateness in the etymology. Plus, it doesn't address the specific situation where a man reflexively assumes relative ignorance on the woman's part and seeks to enlighten her.

I'm sure there are also some women who will talk down to a man but not to another woman. Aggrieved men are free to coin a term for this. I'd recommend something other than "womansplaining". That's just lazy, and it suggests the situations are exactly parallel. They're not. Women do not complacently benefit from a position of relative social power that has been reinforced over centuries.[**] Whatever term gets coined, it could catch on. But only if the phenomenon is pervasive enough. That's what happened with "mansplain". Enough people recognized the situation that the word became useful. I don't feel the need for "womansplain" or any other word with that meaning. I'm not sure when I would have occasion to use it. "Mansplaining," on the other hand? I see that $#@! all the time.

------------------
[*] Hat tip to Linear Gnome for reminding me of that connection in an earlier post.

[**] I didn't feel like trying to spell milllllennnnnnia.
Point missed, or at least if you were referring to what I said. Mansplaining, as BigDaddyMatty has said (and this comes from my own personal experience with politically correct classmates, as well), is more often than not used as a cudgel to shield women from criticism of their particular views, especially if it has to do with gender or social justice.
"More often than not." I didn't catch that nuance when you wrote "accusing someone of 'mansplaining' [is] just a really simpleminded ad hominem attack." I responded by pointing out that this is not always the case and there can be legitimate uses. If we agree about that, there's no argument.

We do disagree on Zakharov's use. I felt it was not only appropriate but the mot juste. It described the situation exactly.
Alright, I'll leave it at that. :)

User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Zach Horan (legendneverdies) Banned

Post by Magna »

Rex Kramer wrote:Your wording left room for question: Who was the explainer explaining to?
The immediate audience was a big room with all kinds of people - it was a "town meeting" type of format. But it was also being recorded for broadcast, so I guess you could say the audience was everyone.

Fwiw, maybe there are a few ways of thinking that are so universal they can be fairly attributed to a whole group, but there aren't many. If what someone says is identified as a generalization, such that what he's saying really amounts to an observation about what is common or prevalent, fair enough. (I think de Tocqueville's writing falls in that category.) But when it's not, and especially if it amounts to criticism or blame of literally the whole group because of some imputed fault, it's likely to be unjust and unhelpful.

Post Reply