Response to Flash Foxy & Outside Magazine Article

Merlin wrote: The irony of using a term that demonizes 50 percent of the human population based on gender on a thread that is essentially about perceptions of gender discrimination makes this about one of the best MP posts of all time.

Yes, a man explaining mansplaning to other men. I totally agree, this entire thread is a head spinning dumpster fire.

brettbergeron wrote: Yes, a man explaining mansplaning to other men. I totally agree, this entire thread is a head spinning dumpster fire.

This entire thread is a little microcosm of our own greater reality. No one listens to anyone else. Everyone goes to their own corners and puts their hands up. None of it's productive. Certainly quid pro quo reasoning is detrimental to progress. Try to be nice to your fellow human being, it's better than getting angry at them.

brettbergeron wrote: Yes, a man explaining mansplaning to other men. I totally agree, this entire thread is a head spinning dumpster fire.

The term "mansplaining" is just an attempt to invalidate the person's argument based on their gender. It is the exact opposite of what those that use it say they stand for. Rather than provide an intelligent response to the argument made by another individual they attempt to undercut it and insult the person's gender instead.

I don't dispute that there are certainly times when the term "mansplaining" is warranted- when a man talks down to a woman because they are a woman and pretend they don't understand what is going on. That is absolutely not what was going on here, instead it was a well thought out and explained argument against what the prior author had written. It's called discourse. This is not how the majority of people use the term, instead it is used as a cheap insult.

Donald Trump would be proud. Rather than have some intelligent discussion of a topic, just hurl insults at one another. That'll show em'

Bunch of Trumpsplainers

SDY wrote: The term "mansplaining" is just an attempt to invalidate the person's argument based on their gender. It is the exact opposite of what those that use it say they stand for. Rather than provide an intelligent response to the argument made by another individual they attempt to undercut it and insult the person's gender instead. I don't dispute that there are certainly times when the term "mansplaining" is warranted- when a man talks down to a woman because they are a woman and pretend they don't understand what is going on. That is absolutely not what was going on here, instead it was a well thought out and explained argument against what the prior author had written. It's called discourse. This is not how the majority of people use the term, instead it is used as a cheap insult. Donald Trump would be proud. Rather than have some intelligent discussion of a topic, just hurl insults at one another. That'll show em'

It was to my great disappointment that the original author's post began as an attempt to educate us all on sampling, but veered into a defensively driven critique of feminism in general. Perhaps the original author is not educated on topics of social equality from first-hand material, and it's been my failure to not address how the original post is a deeply misdirected response. Unfortunately, after reading the sixteen pages of this thread, the unbelievable level of hostility in the responses earned the loss of my patience.

The author of the original post was attempting to explain how the survey, its premises, and conclusions are incorrect based on his own personal anecdotes as a male climber. See item four of the post in particular. Well written as it may be, it's still talking down to a broad number of both women and men that partook in the survey and agreed that gender bias played a role in the climbing culture around them. There couldn't be a better time to call it what it is, mansplaining. It's accurate and earned criticism.

The author should know that points two, three, and four read as very ignorant of the real lives that people of many different backgrounds have in our world. Attempting to redefine harassment (section two), around the worldview of one man is simply ignorant of the complex and innumerable ways people often feel when outnumbered or intimidated in an environment. The author later speaks for all men (section three), and depicts both the survey and article as an enemy of the climbing community—but the author is hiding under the false argument that he speaks for all men (he does not).

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has really told the author that it's actually OK to feel defensive. The goal of the survey and the article is simply to educate people and seek their reflection on the reality that enough people are made uncomfortable that it matters, that now we should think to ourselves about what it means to be polite and considerate in the presence of other people.

That's all this survey is really about—making a conscious decision about what our manners should be face to face, at the gym, crag, and in life. Sometimes that means we have to change a little, sometimes that means we need to encourage change in other people. Maybe the author doesn't need to change at all, but some people out there definitely do.

Daniel Evans wrote: In my opinion, the minute we allow terms like sexual harassment and gender discrimination to be open to false interpretation, we end up with a witch hunt on our hands.

You're making it seem like there is a Platonic definition of sexual harassment and gender discrimination - one that exists outside of context and can be clearly defined and thus "falsely interpreted". There isn't: those terms are defined only within the context of a given interaction and the historic context of the groups interacting.

I think you are not addressing this point that has been brought up repeatedly: You, a man, cannot claim that something is or is not discrimination or harassment against a woman. Only the person being harassed/discriminated can claim this.

Daniel Evans wrote: I feel like this same line or something similar would work for strangers offering unwanted beta as well. It's polite and straight to the point. Granted it's just one example of B, but not too crazy to suggest I hope?

Again, to claim that an oppressed group should just be patient and have calm conversations is something that comes from priviledge. Of course we as white men can say "you should just be calm and talk to the person!" because we experience these types of things so rarely and almost never have our safety threatened. A woman may not have the patience or feel safe enough to talk to each guy that does something uncomfortable or threatening, the same as a black person might not have the patience or safe feeling to "just talk to" the police officer harassing them.

Then throw in how defensive (and often offensive) most men will get... I'm sure we can find examples of women who have tried "just talking to" men who are making unwanted advances, only to be berated or threatened because of the rejection.

Even socially, how comfortable do you think you would feel being the "party pooper" and speaking up about how your friends use the words "cunt" or "bitch"? Might you be nervous that you would be labeled as "looking to get offended" (oh wait...).

So yes, the idea that we should all just talk it out as it comes up is a bit too naive and hopeful.

Daniel Evans wrote: I am implying that if the author wants to be taken seriously by the functioning adult world then she might want to reconsider her sampling techniques as well as her use of the terms 'safe spaces' and 'microaggressions' in her writing.

Sure, if she wants to be taken seriously by your world. I take her plenty seriously, as do many other "functioning adults" in this thread. Try to control your condescension.

Daniel Evans wrote: Whether or not you want to believe it, if one of my female climbing partners approached me and told me that something I was doing was making them feel uncomfortable or was offensive then I would immediately cease my behavior and try to understand what it was that made them feel that way.

Daniel Evans wrote: But when the author cites examples such as the time she assumed another male climber assumed her male belayer was her boyfriend, to me that has "looking to get offended" all over it.

Here's the funny thing: the previous two quotes are in the same paragraph, yet they are completely contradictory.

First of all, ignoring what i said that a woman may not be comfortable enough to speak up about a behaviour, we have a clear example of a woman (granted not your partner or friend) speaking up about things that make her uncomfortable or upset and you write it off as "looking to get offended". So really what you mean to say is:

"If one of my female climbing partners approached me and told me that something i was doing was making them feel uncomfortable or was offensive, and if I deemed her assessment as valid according to my definition of what can be offensive, then I would cease my behavior. If I didn't find it valid, I would dismiss her as "looking to get offended"".

You should try the thought experiment of imagining that the author of the article is one of your good friends - how might you react differently to what she is trying to say?

Very well written response, Brett. I actually think that, to Daniel Evans' credit, his lack of outright hostility makes it possible to continue this important conversation.

Given some of the limitations of the study (and probably small budget), I wonder about the quality of the questions asked? Asking questions is easy, but asking a good survey question is extremely hard. I can't help but wonder if this survey had weak questions for such and important topic!

Daniel Evans wrote: 2.) I'm at the gym climbing working a problem and a girl comes up to me and places her hands around my waist as if she were spotting me, I ask her to stop, but she continues despite me explicitly telling her to stop.

climbing friend,

how you say, the laughing it is out loud, this has not had happened to you.

I understand that this is a modern trend to equate "feeling uncomfortable" and "beeing discriminated". It's not limited to climbing.
However this trend is counterproductive.
You feel uncomfortable when you learn a new skill.
To grow you need to stop whining and continue practicing.
"Feeling uncomfortable" is a part of our life.
There is no easy way around.

Aleks Zebastian wrote: climbing friend, how you say, the laughing it is out loud, this has not had happened to you.

Again, obvious double standard. Women are given free reign to tell anecdotes of harassment (ie. assuming someone is looking at you- "it happens all the time") etc... questioning the veracity of statements or generalizations made from said anecdotes leads to swift public stoning. However if a man reports his experience with harassment..... "nah... he's lying."

climbing friend,

the laughing it is still out loud.

do you even flash?

double standard it exists, for certains many thing. but this for obvious did not happen to this man who poses hypothetical scenario for fear his wang is slapped were gender roles reversed.

however, go to rifle and appear to struggle, and it does not matter your gender, someone will do shouting micro-detail fine mist spray at you for every move, type of handhold, angle, etc., as if their every word it spurs you on like lazy horse, and carry you ever higher sending.

all your flash are belong to me.

SDY wrote:Again, obvious double standard. Women are given free reign ...."

The most heinous act of sexual discrimination is a requirement for a straight man to wear a Taliban approved Sharia compliant knee long bathing suit.
Women and gay men are allowed to wear whatever they want to make them comfortable.
However a straight men are not allowed to wear European bathing suits.
At the same time neither Al Sharpton nor Barack Obama fight for our freedom.
New York Times and CNN are suspiciously silent about such oppression.
It's not a microagression. It's a full blown totalitarism.

I can't think of a better example of a double standard.

Yury wrote:I can't think of a better example of a double standard.

UHHHH.... what?? Absolutely none of those things are being discussed or held as standards in this thread. I would wager that no one here would support any of the things you just mentioned. I am only discussing the double standard being employed in this thread. Your post is just bait and switch nonsense.

SDY wrote: "I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but I wanted to stereotype and insult all men since I stopped by."

Wrong.

Because:

• She stated that she sampled the responses, so she does actually have some idea of what we're talking about.
• Nowhere in her post does she say that her observation applies to "all men" .
• She's stating an observation about the inability of some participants to understand a woman's perspective, without indicating a desire to insult.

Kent Richards wrote: Wrong. Because: * She stated that she sampled the responses, so she does actually have some idea of what we're talking about. * Nowhere in her post does she say that her observation applies to "all men" . * She's stating an observation about the inability of some participants to understand a woman's perspective, without indicating a desire to insult.

"Sampling the responses" does not give a right to judge the conversation, nor does it mean you have any idea what people are trying to argue.

ChapelPondGirl wrote: I think what you're dealing with here is men having no idea what it means to be a woman in this world...... In this case, male privilege.

Saying "men have no idea what it means..." refers to the entire group. The word all does not have to be put in front to address the entire group.

Kent Richards wrote: without indicating a desire to insult.

ChapelPondGirl wrote: ...men having no idea ... men make sweeping assumptions on that ignorance and dismiss someone's struggles is the definition of PRIVILEGE.

Hmmm... "men have no idea," "ignorance," "privilege.." These are all insults.

This is the problem with discourse in America. People don't want to sit and listened to a reasoned argument. They want to quickly skim, judge everyone based on their preconceived biases then insult everyone involved... and probably make a meme about it. Then sit back with smug self-righteousness and think about how brilliant they are. The American Method.

SDY wrote: "Sampling the responses" does not give a right to judge the conversation, nor does it mean you have any idea what people are trying to argue. Saying "men have no idea what it means..." refers to the entire group. The word all does not have to be put in front to address the entire group. Hmmm... "men have no idea," "ignorance," "privilege.." These are all insults.

Again, wrong.

Sampling the responses indicates some awareness of the arguments. This is contrary to "no idea what people are trying to argue".

SDY wrote:Saying "men have no idea what it means..." refers to the entire group.

No, in the context of her statement it only refers to the men in the thread who are demonstrating ignorance of a typical woman's experience in the world. That doesn't imply "all men", it only implies men who are demonstrating that ignorance.

SDY wrote: "men have no idea," "ignorance," "privilege.." These are all insults.

Not to someone who strives to understand their meaning...

"Ignorant" simply means "not knowing": the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

"Privilege" simply means having benefits over another group. It's not an insult, it's a status.

Saying "men having no idea what it means to be a woman in this world" is hardly an insult; it's a statement of perception.

But to take that further: do you think a man can fully understand what it means to be a woman in the world? How can a man fully understand what a woman experiences on a day-to-day basis?

Barrett Pauer wrote:

Lolz... yeah. Jews are definitely the most privileged religion. Boy have they had it easy!

Kent Richards wrote: Sampling the responses indicates some awareness of the arguments.

Sampling does not indicate any awareness. Trump supports routinely sample Trump clips to see the Trump they want to see.... Sampling is also meaningless... indicates no level of reading... just that she saw some posts. The intelligent discussion posts are long, and take a lot of reading and thinking. Not simply sampling and skimming.

Kent Richards wrote: No, in the context of her statement it only refers to the men in the thread who are demonstrating ignorance of a typical woman's experience in the world.

That's fair. You could interpret it that way.. only men in this thread. However, the thread is about an article that is discussing nationwide gym habits.

Kent Richards wrote: Not to someone who strives to understand their meaning...

Haha... thanks for defining those simple words to me.... You aren't "Mansplaining" are you?!? Microaggression, -1.

No, those were definitely insults. There is no meaning behind those to be interpreted from a 4 sentence post that says she sampled the posts and thinks the men are ignorant, privileged and make sweeping generalizations..... What an amusing generalization to make...

Kent Richards wrote: Do you think a man can fully understand what it means to be a woman in the world?

Quite a philosophical question. Of course not, nobody can truly understand what it's like to be any other person. Nobody was arguing they could. They were arguing against the sweeping stereotypes made about men in the article and the false claims about the rate of sexual harassment in climbing gyms. Pseudoscience claims have gotten out of hand in this country. Anyone can make an online survey these days and pretend as if they've proven something. Didn't you hear! Trump won the debate by a landslide.....

I know this is a bit late but I thought this video might be helpful for some of the earlier conversation as ViperScale kind of scared me and I thought do other people think this way? If you do please watch the video.
Consent as Explained by Tea