Can you ban people for using the term mansplain? Or at least give them a severe flogging?
Oh boo hoo. It's a term for a reason and was entirely applicable here.
Always seems to score truckloads of runs, so I think most NZers are hopeful for him, but at the same time there are technical deficiencies or attributes that could curtail his success. He's been discussed a lot in the NZ domestic thread.
I don't believe he has contempt for women's sport as a general rule - he's actually very knowledgeable of women's golf.
There is always a reason ***ist or racist terms come about. There are also reasons not to use them, as is the case with the risible expression mansplaining.
Yes, fair point on Reason's knowledge of women's golf (I generally enjoy Reason's articles, even if he can go over the top trying to stir people up). In terms of prize money, it certainly makes commercial sense in cricket that there would be a significant disparity at present. Interesting BBC survey on prize money in sports from a couple of years ago - found of the 35 where prize money was paid 25 pay equal prize money for men & women. The biggest disparities in prize money were found in football, cricket, golf, darts, snooker and squash (although in darts & snooker it is open entry to the world championships if you qualify).
Surely then you're backing him for an extended stay in the Black Caps - as he already averages 50 in FC and will face faster bowling in internationals.
Eh, that descended into being a "not all men" article pretty fast. We know literally anyone can do this this style of explaining about a particular subject. If I use mansplain, I don't imply that this is something all men do but it is a particular thing some men do and it happens often enough to have a name. And
I don't get irritated one bit.
Also it's not really implying there's anything genetically inherent that we do it - it's all a social construct, thanks to years of ***ism, that compels some men that they need to explain things in such a manner. If you jump onto that former argument you're missing the larger point, which itself is inherent in mansplaining.
sure, but it's just a lazy way of doing things as pointed out in the article:
It you're having a discussion, and some dude comes in with a **** argument that's beside the point, there isn't a responsibility to rip it apart and satisfy their line of argument. The whole reason why the word exists is because of the frustration of this thing that happens quite often which isn't at all constructive, circles the point at hand and derails things.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
As I said, there are reasons various ***ist or racist expressions come about. The fact that there might be an underlying statistical basis for people to come up with a ***ist descriptor of a given behaviour, based on that statistical reality, doesn't mean it should be acceptable to use it.
I've only ever seen it used either 1) in articles defining what it is/talking about it and 2) after someone has mansplained something, so it's for me it's a retroactive descriptor of someone doing a dickish thing.
Except mansplaining itself isn't a conducive or constructive discussion technique/avenue in the first place. If it was, it wouldn't have this label. If it demonises people who feel the need to explain what's already the blatantly obvious in an overtly ***ist manner which is beside the discussion then they deserve to be demonised until they learn that they're just ****ing wrong. However using mansplain arbitrarily to describe anything said by a man in an argument/discussion is obviously erroneous too. But I've never seen that happen.
