Didn’t notice it was a woman at first, but isn’t it an appeal to authority? The fact that someone is an astronaut doesn’t mean they can’t also be a dumb fuck. Just look at Russians - Oleg Artemyev, Tereshkova, Rogozin. I’m not familiar with NASA astronauts but surely some of them were also complete idiots as well?
The fact that someone is an astronaut doesn’t mean they can’t also be a dumb fuck. Just look at Russians
Did they teach you that in school? The same school where they taught you Sally Ride was the first woman in space?
I’d say being an astronaut pretty much negates being dumb as fuck, especially in the early days.
Germany sent the first rocket out in space, and both the URSS and the USA benefited from the Nazis to make things happen.
Russia? They can’t even launch an ICBM nowadays.
Also, being “first” is good but kind of a dick measuring contest IMO.
kind of a dick measuring contest IMO.
A nice sum-up of the Cold War, yes. Carlin said it best.
Not sure I get your point. I wasn’t implying that all the Russian cosmonauts are dumb fucks, just that the only cases I’m familiar with all being Russians.
The guy is clearly “mansplaining” though.
Is there a gender neutral version of mansplaining?
Themsplaining?
This post made me realize mansplaining can happen to anyone.
People say the same thing to other men. Is it mansplaining then too?
Yeah, it is. The act of mansplaining isn’t gender specific. It is about the attempt to raise someone’s status above someone else by nitpicking what they said, with often obvious facts.
The fact that the boiling is not spontaneous is not obvious especially on account of how it’s not true. So that definition is going to need some tweaking. And anyway I think it’s much more likely that the person just didn’t notice they were replying to an astronaut than that they thought they could elevate their status. They were trying to share their (incorrect) knowledge.
I guess the question is who they were even talking to. Where they talking to the astronaut, or anyone reading their message. That would make a difference.
If I say: “When the sun rises…” and someone comes along to enlighten me about astronomy and how the sun doesn’t rise, that would be mansplaining and not correcting. If they talk to someone else because my words inspirerd them to think about this, then it wouldn’t.
The definition says the opposite. But even if it was the case, it should NOT be used like this becaue it is specifically targeting men, which would be sexist. Being the very thing it meant to destroy.
Yeah, Men do it to each other all the time too. The sociological context when that happens makes it much less difficult to manage though, as there isn’t the cultural tendency to dismiss other men when they imply they have an understanding of a field that is perceived as typically male-exclusive (hard sciences, mechanics, etc.). It’s a term to describe a complicated and fairly important topic, that has unfortunately become a meme for people to rail against because it’s been characterized as a criticism of an entire group (men) and not as it’s intended (as a comment on a specific person’s behavior).
It also has an anti-intellectual aspect to it. People like to explain things, that’s sort of the whole idea behind science, is to be able to do that. Sometimes people try to explain things and they’re wrong. And that’s okay, it’s part of the process of science. Further, the notes of patronization are subjective and not everyone would agree they’re present here.
So to automatically label things like this as “mansplaining” makes a few unfair assumptions.
And there’s the issue with it being treated as a criticism of an entire group, and not as a comment on a single person’s behavior. There are obviously exceptions to behavioral norms, and as a result any interaction between humans is going to be uniquely contextual. But presenting the concept as a whole as anti-intellectual (or as is commonly done, as some kind of attack on the ability for an enthusiastic person to explain something they are passionate about) fundamentally mischaracterizes the concept. It is not an automatic label that is applied, it’s a description of a common and very complex negative behavior.
To explain something needlessly, pedantically or condescendingly and to someone (usually female) that is already versed or even an authority on the topic are the traits of ‘mansplaining’. What is happening in the OP, where someone is condescendingly and needlessly correcting a woman (who can be assumed to be aware of 3rd-grade level science like phase transitions given she is qualified to be an astronaut) on her use of a term (that was already a correct explanation) is the issue that makes it mansplaining.
You can be enthusiastic about a topic and share that knowledge all you want, nobody is saying “no don’t explain things to girls” (or whatever, I don’t think that’s what you’re claiming to be clear it’s just an example). They’re saying “don’t be rude to other people while explaining things, and this was a rude way to do that”.
Pet peeve
(This always comes up when discussing this topic: being autistic is not an excuse for being rude. It’s an explanation for non-typical behavior, and does merit and nearly always garner forgiveness for infractions of social norms, but you can still be a rude jerk even if you are autistic. You can also be a great, kind and understanding person if you are autistic. Autistic people are, fundamentally, people. People are a diverse group not defined by a singular aspect of their personality.)
Edit: Clarity
My biggest pet peeve with terms like “mansplaining” is that it does contain a real issue with some actual definition, but then it uses such a blunt and crude word that’s just plain besides the point of what it actually means.
If this was a term against women, feminists would be up in arms because the stupid terminology almost guarantees that it will be understood and used wrong.
Because fundamentally, the word itself is man+explaining, and it’s used just like that: Whenever a man explains something a woman doesn’t want to hear, it’s mansplaining. No matter who is the expert in the field.
In a prior job I was head of software development. I built the team, I built all the software, I worked on all the hardware we sold.
We hired a new marketing person. She had no prior experience, it was her first job in the field after returning from a long maternity break and before that she worked in an unrelated field. She put stuff into marketing material that was plain wrong. She listed features that we not only didn’t have, but that didn’t actually apply to the whole product category. When I pointed that out, she tried to shut it down with “Don’t mansplain”.
The concept behind “mansplaining” is real and it is a problem in some circumstances. But the term is toxic and needs to go.
(Similar story with the term “toxic masculinity”, which is often understood as “all masculinity is toxic”, not as “machismo”. This one really annoys me, since we already had a really good term, “machismo”.)
I agree - the term has reached a point where at this point it’s become little more than an alt-right dogwhistle. The phenomenon is real, and really extremely common, and a new term should absolutely be introduced so that discussion of the concept isn’t derailed by people constantly going “ugh it’s such an oppressive thing”. I doubt that new term would avoid the same thing happening, the alt-right does love to destroy the language of their enemies, but hey that brief time where it’s useful would be convenient as hell.
Side note:
(I wouldn’t normally point this out, but it’s beside the point. That you’re making a (literal, not dismissing you) semantic argument and the first sentence has a semantic error was too amusing not to point out.)
You are right that any term can be destroyed by the alt-right, that’s totally true (I mean they got the term “walkable city” to mean something like “apocalyptic ghetto” in their sphere), but I think that “mansplaining” (and to a slightly lesser degree “toxic masculinity”) were already dead on arrival.
Mansplaining is such a bad term, that it already doesn’t work without the alt-right touching it.
At least in German speaking counties (can’t speak for the rest of the world), feminism is known for being really particular with words used for/against women, because they know that words shape understanding. For the last 20 or so years we have had (and still have) a quite heated discussion about gender-correct language¹. But instead of applying the same scrutiny to terms used for men, these terms are just adopted without question.
I just want the same scrutiny to be applied for all terms. “Hysteria” is rightfully a word that dropped out of use, and so should “mansplaining” be.
Why not just use a gender-neutral word like “overexplaining” or just describe what’s the problem instead of using a fighting term that only causes pushback instead of actually helping people understand problematic behaviour?
¹ German is a gendered language, meaning almost every term has distinct male and female versions, and gender-correct language means that you use constructs that mention both genders. The reasoning is that using the generic masculinum (aka, use the male version if you don’t care about the gender) leads to people not considering women, so e.g. when you hear “Arzt” ( (male) doctor) it makes women working in that job invisible and shapes who wants to become a doctor. Similar with female-first terms like “Schwester” (which means “nurse” or “sister”).
Why not just use a gender-neutral word
Because it’s not a gender-neutral problem. In a non-gendered language, an explicitly gendered term is generally used for strong emphasis. I’m sorry, I just don’t know why insights about semantics in a gendered language are relevant in a discussion of a non-gendered language. It’s not that it’s not interesting, it is, I just don’t know how to address it within this context. (Does german have the word “mansplaining” too? Or like, a term to describe a similar concept? Maybe we can ‘borrow’ that one off you guys too, compound words are so dang handy sometimes…)
It wasn’t rude at all, it was one of the most neutral ways of “correcting” someone (in quotes because yes the correction was wrong) but it was basically “I think it’s actually X” which is about as non-aggressive as it can get.
The issue I take with it is not at all about group dynamics. Even if it’s one guy saying this to another, if someone is going to call that “mansplaining” I have an issue with it because it’s just explaining. Incorrectly, and maybe very slightly patronizingly (but only because the person being spoken to is a scientist and not because of the way it’s said), but still at its core simply explaining something they think is true. That is the core of scientific discourse and I don’t care what the genders are, giving it a stupid name and using that as an insult is antithetical to the open and curious exchange of information.
You seem to have a preconceived idea of what ‘mansplaining’ is and, in an effort to examine that, could you tell me why you think the term has achieved such widespread cultural use?
Why widespread? Well because it’s “punching up” and catchy and plays in to the traditional feminist narrative that women are oppressed in $WESTERN_COUNTRY particular in science even though women regularly outperform their male counterparts in terms of college grading and admissions. You’re basically asking why feminism is popular.
Wouldn’t it be natural that having existed as an idea for over 10 years I would have a preconceived notion of it?
I was defending you then but I can’t anymore. No, it’s not because feminism boosts it, it’s because extreme feminists (the real feminazis) and misandrists love to abuse this word
Feminism is good, but generalizing men or accusing of sexism without evidence is dumb sexism
Just like accusing of racism without evidence. It’s defamation
I’m circumspectly asking what you believe are the driving forces behind feminism’s popularity, absolutely. To carry your allusion, the first step in understanding any software is to check it’s dependencies; as natural languages are just really messy formal languages, and by the transitive property of “I just made this up but it sounds good”, it holds that the first step to understanding someone’s statements is to examine the fundamental concepts they used to construct that statement.
To that end then, lets look at you holding some contempt for the idea of “punching up”. I doubt you intended that to be the takeaway, but it’s presented as the justification for an idea you have expressed strong disagreement to. If you held it was totally valid, there wouldn’t be much a conflict. So: why is it wrong to do in this case?
Aaaaaand… there it is. Careful, your incel is showing.
- Water in space boils, freezes or evaporates?
- Yes
Triple point moment.
Water is a triple threat in space?
Until you hit ice9
Yup! Somehow you can drown in your own sweat and or emesis not to mention any glob of free floating water that gets attached to your face.
Again, who’s recreating Twitter screenshots really badly, and why? There’s a person on Reddit with like five alts who’s been spamming these posts, and I’m so confused by it.
yeah this looks fake as fuck with the purpose of being inflammatory and divisive.
Wow dude, the irony is insane. Can’t belive you would steal this.
This post literally has the watermark of the account that creates/posts these. Other people or bots are reposting them, sure, but they’re coming from some kind of aggregation account that has this particular style of recreating Twitter threads in a space that fits into the Instagram preference for square images.
The entire picture looks completely fake like somebody tried to create a twitter screenshot from scratch in paint.
You should be able to do a near perfect job in any image editor. They make kits that have all the assets already built.
I’m pretty sure its crafted rage bait to get women angry at men and men angry at women. Its constant on reddit. The conversion is probably a decade old at this point if its even real in the first place.
Bots building histories. (Not this post, on Reddit)
this shit looks like ms paint
developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
Pretty much the definition of spontaneous if you ask me.
Yes, afaik in science community that is in fact the correct use of the word, meaning from “environmental” conditions (well, it’s test conditions for the environment in this case) and not from an active, localised influence.
I mean, if you put some stuff in a room, then slowly start to heat the room up, would you describe the things — which will at one point or another catch fire —as “spontaneously” combusting?
I’m not arguing the use is wrong here, just a thought I had.
Yes, actually. The autoignition point is the temperature at which a given material will spontaneously (as in, without a spark or the like) catch fire, given a source of oxygen.
Yes, that is why I used the quotation marks & further explained that the “heat up the room” in your case would be ‘a simulation of environment’.
Eg, a tree at 20°C has an extremely low chance of spontaneously combusting into a self-fueling oxidation event (lol, shit’s on fire, yo) in your average environment, but those chances at 200°C are much higher.
In order to test this spontaneous combustion theory (whilst having no regard for the life of the tree) you would need to simulate that 200°C environmental conditions. … by heating the air around the tree.
In that case you would heat up a chamber or whatever and in turn eventually maybe burn the tree.
This wound still test/prove the spontaneous combustibility thing.
You bringing open flame in contact with the tree however would not* be that - that is just actively (non-spontaneously) starting a reaction.This is an experiment trying to test some natural conditions. Every test as such (eg if witnessed by a clueless alien observer) is you doing something actively so ofc none of it is spontaneous.
*unless the environmental conditions you were testing/simulating would be “open 1000° flames/plasma completely everywhere” … but you may not get a grant for testing “if wood added to fire also burns”
“Spontaneous” in this usage is highly dependent on frame of reference.
In addition to what MotoAsh said, it also has a definite external influence and a well defined force acting upon it. It boiled because it underwent a change in pressure.
Without apparent external influence. Relative pressure is something humans have a hard time judging. As well as it just exists everyone in that zone vice something easy to perceive, like a fire under a pot boiling water.
Idk man, my ears are pretty good at estimating quick relative pressure changes.
Also, were I in a spavesuit, I’d probably have trouble judging temperature changed as well.
You are telling me the vacuum pump makes it not an apparent external influence? It is kinda loud?
She wasn’t saying that water was spontaneously boiling in this chamber. She was saying that they were in a space-equivalent chamber with a pressure such that water would spontaneously boil. If you found yourself in the environment that is being simulated here (outer space), you would be able to observe water spontaneously boiling without the vacuum pumps.
The act of going into space is very apparent. There is a giant rocket you are strapped to. My point isn’t arguing “spontaneous boiling”, which in this case is used correctly. But rather the common use of spontaneous in this thread is defined as having no apparent cause. That’s just not true. There is a cause, in the picture, the pressure of the room is being manipulated. And the reason for the water boiling is the ΔP.
Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one. The fact water will boil isn’t spontaneous. “Spontaneous” still works for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict.
So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”. Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous. Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture? Spontaneous.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining. It’s showcasing pedantry. Nearly valid pedantry at that.
“Spontaneous” is actually the correct word to use here, using its definition in statistical mechanics.
Here’s an example: https://principlesofchemistryopencourse.pressbooks.tru.ca/chapter/5-6/
This should have been the correct answer to Kev, and not that thing about mansplaining.
I think would’ve even worked in a reference to “it is Kev’s turn to study statistical mechanics.”
Yes, I already said it is correct when viewing it as specific water boiling.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining. It’s showcasing pedantry.
Just like this comment!
Yes, that’s the point. I’m explaining a very pedantic point, ofc that requires ample amounts of pedantry.
Spontaneous doesn’t mean “happens suddenly without explanation” what are you on about?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Eh, it definitely has a cause. A known one.
Nothing to do with the physical definition of spontaneity. Spontaneity of a process just means that the ∆G is negative or total energy of the system is lower after the process, and additional energy isn’t required for the process to be thermodynamically allowed. This is, and I can’t stress this enough, the simplest of simple thermo.
for the sole reason which specific molecules is nigh impossible to predict
Also unrelated, but it is fully impossible to predict, since in trying to predict it well enough you reach quantum scales where everything is probabilistic. That doesn’t at all mean everything is spontaneous.
So, who is correct depends entirely on the mental framing of what someone thinks of when they read “water”.
Nope, the first person is strictly correct and the second is strictly incorrect, as described above.
Water as an abstract idea of a specific type of fluid? Not spontaneous.
Nope, exactly spontaneous. You could even forget about water entirely and model this just as a bunch of nuclei and electrons in a box and derive that the lowest energy state has them being in a gas of atoms, and the initial state doesn’t, which is enough to demonstrate by our earlier statements that boiling is spontaneous.
Water as in what will literally happen to the bottle of water in the picture?
This is “not even wrong” territory.
This post isn’t showcasing mansplaining.
It absolutely is. We will define mansplaining here as the confidently incorrect dismissal of statements of women by men where we suspect that the genders of the participants may play a role.
The first part has been demonstrated above. It is also reasonable to assume the second given that we observe this happening to women at a far greater frequency than to men. Although, like with atoms, we cannot prove that this individual instance is a direct result, it is consistent with the probabilistic data and we would need additional evidence to conclude that this particular guy just goes around wrongly correcting everyone equally.
Nearly valid pedantry at that.
Once again, not remotely.
Well said.
I think you may have meant to say “confidently incorrect dismissal” in your definition of mansplaining.
Oh, good catch, thanks
Nah you just don’t understand language or pedantry.
I said it takes an autistic reading to come to the non-standard conclusion. I’m also not agreeing with the pedantry, hence “almost valid”.
I’m sorry you do not understand how autistic people misread things or jump to funky conclusions, but I am wholly correct and you just want to be an asshole.
You’re probably one of those people that perpetuates the mistreatment of autistic people for shit like this. Pathetic of you.
Lol
And here we observe the Pendant in the natural habitat. Looks like they are trying to troll with the one word comment, “LOL”. Where will the conversation go from here, only time will tell.
Everything has a cause.
Even your face
While you are technically correct, you also misunderstand who the target audience is and what language is required to actually make people understand.
When speaking to a normal person you don’t want to slap random jargon and care too much about precise definitions. So in that context spontaneous is a great word to describe what is happening. People without deep backgrounds in the field will not understand technical jargon and it will only make them not pay attention.
Spontaneous is actually the thermodynamic jargon in this case though :)
No, I’m explaining the pedantry, not agreeing with it. I said almost valid pedantry.
I’d still say it’s spontaneous because when you reduce pressure you’re removing a factor rather than adding one. It’s like saying “when you compress a spring and then remove the compression force, it will spontaneously return to its previous length.” Water vapor can be seen as water’s “natural” state when thero no pressure forcing it to be a liquid. Also saying “simple thermo” to an astronaut is definitely mansplaining, because it implies the other person doesn’t know that simple thermo. Maybe it’s just pedantry, but in that case damn that’s some terrible phrasing.
Hahaha, under that definition not spontaneous can ever occur
No, many things in chemistry are functionally spontaneous. That’s why her usage of the word is totally fine.
He’s just taking an autistic reading of the text as I’ve described already. He’s being a bit of a pedantic ass, sure, but mansplaining is not simply being an ass.
no
Yes. Pedantry doesn’t make the guy more correct. He’s still being an ass. I’m not agreeing with him. So the fact you still don’t understand is a bit… sad for you. Do you treat autistic people like shit because they don’t operate on social norms and the most common understandings of statements? If you say, “no”, then I’d suggest you introspect a LOT more, because the answer is clearly yes.
words have meanings. thats not what spontaneous means in this context. the definition of spontaneous in this context is independent of the nature of water. and i frankly don’t give a shit if you struggle with social norms. i care that the word has a meaning and you are abusing it.
I agree, it really is showcasing pedantry. That man is just an asshole, not a misogynistic asshole. To me, this thread is full of confirmation bias. People who want to see what they personally believe, not objective reality.
It’s not an external cause. It boils on its own, because the molecules don’t want to be close together.
Pressure almost by definition is external influence…
There’s no pressure in space
You should be an astronaut
I hate the mansplaining accusation, especially in this context
Fucking let ideas compete. Call him out for being pedantic. If you have to bring gender into nearly any conversation about science, you’ve already lost
Just shame them with better science
The term “mansplaining” is not just about a man being pedantic. It is a man being pedantic or overexplaining to a woman either about something she is likely more knowledgeable on than he is or about something that is such common knowledge it should be assumed that she knows these facts as well as he does. It is a demonstration of misogyny through the assumption that you, a man, knows better than her, a woman, despite all liklihood to the contrary and yet you condescend to her anyway. It’s the arrogance and gender bias that is the problem, not the pedantry itself.
through the assumption that you, a man, knows better than her
And what’s the evidence that this happened here? You just assumed he was sexist.
Funnily enough, assuming men are likely to be sexist is sexist
The thing I don’t like about the mansplaining accusation is it makes lots of men out to be sexist/misogynistic when they are really just pedantic twits that very well could have commented the same stupid thing to a man. But because it was to a woman someone has to accuse them of being sexist too.
Don’t get me wrong there are a lot of sexist assholes, but just assuming it to be the case off a single comment irks me.
I think the problem a lot of people here are having is that they’re assuming the accusation is active sexism. Like it’s a cognitive decision to go “phht, what would she know, she’s a woman”.
I suspect the vast majority of mansplaning scenarios are subconscious. They probably don’t even know that’s what they’re doing abs would never see themselves as being sexist. I think that’s because everyone sees the word “sexist” and associates it with clichéd extreme sexism, like cat calling, not wanting a Female pilot, ignoring their ideas in meetings etc.
The thing about subtle unconscious bias is that you’re almost never aware you’re doing it, but it still has similar effects on the affected group.
The healthy thing to do is to listen to the person it’s affecting, analyse the scenario, and reflect on if it’s something that you, or people you know, might have been doing without realising.
Counterpoint - explaining things the other party knows is how you get on the same page.
I don’t give a shit about your degree or your gender, it tells me nothing about where you’re at. Most people are fucking idiots who have no idea how anything works, and that includes doctors and probably astronauts
And I say this as someone constantly underestimated. Yeah, it’s annoying to hear things you already know at a basic level. I ask people if they know about things and take them at their word
But this is just normal communication. I don’t know what you know, you don’t know what I know. I probably understand how your mind and body work better than you do, because most people don’t know how their mind and body work beyond a 4th grade level
Explaining things the other person knows is undesirable. It’s also how most people reach the starting line for a dialogue
they are really just pedantic twits that very well could have commented the same stupid thing to a man.
Yes, but men experience this at a slightly lower rate.
So if an astronaut man were to get, say, 10 of these comments, while an astronaut woman gets 15 of these comments, it’s fair to infer that about 5 out of the 15 comments wouldn’t have been made to a man. Problem is that you can’t exactly tell which 5 they are. But you know it’s happening.
Of course, if the ratio is actually closer to 50 versus 10 comments like this, then you’ve got a pretty good sense that 80% of the pedantic overexplainers-to-an-expert are doing it because the original poster is a woman.
And one thing you find for these types of examples with a woman who has clear, unmistakable, objective indicators of expertise (literal astronaut) in the topic at hand is that the ratio is much higher for women than men, in a way that might not have been obvious for lesser credentials (like a high school science teacher). But yet, it still happens.
It’s a name for a phenomenon that has existed for a long time. It’s a concise way to describe that phenomenon, and I still think it’s a good word to have in the vocabulary.
Yeah I do no think mansplaining is not a thing that happens, it absolutely is and is incredibly annoying and insulting.
I just don’t like how people assume someone is misogynistic and mansplaining because of a single comment on the internet and get all accusatory.
It is more of a thing that you need to witness a person doing multiple times to women in order to definitely make an opinion of that person.
If it were a YouTuber that constantly does it in multiple videos then ya fair, throw that in the comments all you want.
In this case though it’s jumping the gun a little bit.
pssssh, sounds like typical Womanplaining….
that’s where a woman complains too much….
you see, in a typical post by a Man, they will get on average 15 complaints by women, but in a post by a woman, only five complaints by women… now you can’t tell which posts are Womanplaining and which ones are genuine complaints, but i think inventing new terms with “woman” and “man” attached to the front are the perfect way to achieve harmony between the sexes and don’t just reinforce sexism.
/s
all satire.
but, “mansplain” is hate speech and it needs to stop.
sexist condescending speech of men towards women is hateful and needs to stop as well….
inventing new slurs is counterproductive.but, “mansplain” is hate speech
lmao
it sure as hell ain’t nothing like misogyny, but misandry is a real thing:
https://en.wikipedia/ .org/wiki/Misandry
….
but i do appreciate your thoughtfulness, @petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
(crazy how MRA psychos have ruined any conversation about the topic)Both exist and are a problem.
(New person here)
The big issue is that we don’t see men being pedantic towards other men at nearly the same rate. Absolutely it happens, but there is definitely a problem with men not respecting women specifically.
Part of it, I think, comes from social conditioning and it’s more of a reaction than anything on purpose when it comes to a large subset of the people doing it. Even still, it’s important to gender it at least sometimes to highlight why we might be doing it and to give us the correct thing to reflect on. I’ve done it before where I could say it to a man but I realized that I what I was saying or doing was fueled, at least in part, by some internalized misogyny. Knowing that has helped me get to it before I do something stupid.
Okay, but do you not realize how big a problem being discharitable to others is?
The fucking fabric of society is falling apart. I’m sorry women get underestimated, like I do. It’s very annoying, believe me, I deal with it constantly
But you suck it up, listen, and make them feel foolish with your response.
The alternative is a further breakdown of communication. You can’t be primed to see others as bad actors, it’s so incredibly damaging
No one is the villain in their own story. No one knows how smart they are, only if others are higher or lower.
Listening to people tell you things you already know is inevitable. It’s social hygiene. It sucks, but it’s the social contract
That’s a lot of words to say you don’t understand the difference. Not knowing something is fine, but fighting it like this is weird. You’re not helping anything with this comment and instead are basically trying to say that it’s not a problem enough to even talk about or understand. If you cannot handle this information that’s something to look inwardly at, not lash out at me for simply explaining what it is.
Women feel talked down because they are women and they can see the exact same men treating other men differently. I regularly see this happen to them, too. Sometimes it’s a small accident and sometimes it’s very much on purpose and all of it is important to understand. I don’t know why you want to pretend like it doesn’t happen but it does either way.
Men are the most pedantic assholes to other men.
Treating women like they are soft little creatures is insanely sexist. Treat them as equals and they will treat you the same. I don’t understand why it’s so hard for other men to understand this.
Edit: i guess my assumption that men shouldn’t be a huge bag of dicks is wrong. No one should ever say something to a male that they shouldn’t say to a female. We shouldn’t need to change our behavior based on the gender of who we are talking to unless we as men fuckin suck.
I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that men need to treat women “equally”, it’s that the reason mansplaining happens is different to the reason that generic pedantry happens. They can happen at the same time, but the general idea is that mansplaining is pedantry with a boost of sexism, intentional or otherwise, not simply being pedantic to a woman. The difference is subtle, and luckily the solution of just not not being an ass to people solves both issues quite well but it’s still good to try identify how much of one or the other is present when you slip up so you can address the correct problem.
Put it another way, you also shouldn’t be treating an old person like a baby when helping them with their phone, or a child like they’re stupid and couldn’t possibly know things a grown-up doesn’t. All of these are genderless examples of how disrespect can come from several angles at once and there is also the gendered scenario we call “mansplaining”.
Sure, but being an arrogant prick that thinks they’re smarter than anyone else, regardless of gender, is already a thing that should be derided. Having only a single or few instances of this behavior being aimed at women as an example of his arrogance may mistakenly lead one to attribute that to misogyny instead of a general prickishness behavior, sure. But that’s a perfectly understandable assumption to make in that situation and the mistake of calling them the wrong kind of asshole, I feel, is less of a concern than him, indeed, being an asshole.
So you prefer defaming people just in case? I’m sorry but that’s dumb.
At this point most people explaining things to others, assuming they’re not knowledgeable, can be called racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic…
I feel like falsely calling out someone makes you a bigger asshole than someone thinking they’re smarter. In a way, you think you’re smarter and believe they only say these things because they’re discriminating.
You can do that without calling someone sexist.
Sometimes people are being sexist. Mansplaining is a real thing that happens. You may not see the need for the word because you personally don’t need it, but maybe you can understand that there a lot of people who do need it?
I mean sure, but you can’t deny it’s misused sometimes. I never said it didn’t happen at all. Stop reading what I didn’t write.
Yes, it’s misused sometimes. And it sounds like you agree that sometimes it’s the right word for the situation.
If a man inaccurately and smugly trying to correct a female astronaut, punctuating it with “Simple thermo”, isn’t the right time to use “mansplaining”, then when would be?
Sure. But it gives the appearance of sexism. Who gives a fuck if he is being an asshole if you mislabeled the kind of asshole he is. I don’t.
You kinda should. The entire value of shaming people is to show a person that somebody else or a group of somebody elses do not approve of their behaviour. If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction? Do you think they’ll be able to understand what they did wrong? Obviously thats not always relevant, some people just want to mudwrestle and they’ll never hear you no matter what you say. It’s worth it to be accurate in case they are the type of person who might remotely consider your words though
If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction?
If they were being sexist and you don’t point that out, wouldn’t that be inaccurate?
everyone knows that.
you just explained very common knowledge to people that certainly know it.
the problem is the terminology…
men and women condescendingly explain shit to people all the time. If you attach the word “man” to it then you’re being sexist.
when a man is condescending to a woman because she’s a woman, then that man is being sexist.
if you assume every time a man is being condescending to a woman they’re being sexist, then you’re sexist.
every time ANYONE makes a factual claim on the internet and it gets enough traction, someone will chime in and condescendingly explain why they’re wrong. gender is not the only factor.
….
it’s certainly terrible how men are sexist and condescending towards women so often… making a new sexist term doesn’t help that problem.
also, i’m not assuming your gender and you don’t know mine, i am merely disagreeing with you.that’s mansplaining /s
That’s a great way to put it.
The mansplaining thing in this context is more about an unfounded assumption of ignorance in the other party. Usually one would assume an astronaut to know basic thermodynamics, but the tweet’s phrasing implies the other other person doesn’t. It’s less “you’re wrong” and more “why do you think she doesn’t know that.”
In this case, though, he’s literally wrong. “Spontaneous” has a precise scientific definition and the astronaut is using it correctly.
A lot more people than that astronaut are going to see the post reply, though. A lot of them probably haven’t taken a thermodynamics lesson.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to mansplain that to you just now. Just wanted future readers to consider another angle.
A lot of them probably haven’t taken a thermodynamics lesson.
Sure, but in that case the replier could’ve phrased their response as such. As it stands they’re addressing the poster, not other people seeing the exchange.
Sure, but in that case the replier could’ve phrased their response as such.
But like if we’re being super duper real for a sec, who gives a shit? It’s such a waste of energy and won’t change anything to pick meaningless social media posts apart. He made a fair point, I choose not to interpret it beyond that.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t make a fair point. I haven’t taken any thermodynamics classes, but I think the word “spontaneous” means something more specific in this context and is technically accurate.
He’s trying to one up her by using the common definition.
So he’s wrong on multiple levels here, and there’s no reason to pick apart the meaningless social media post accusing him of mansplaining.
The term spontaneous in thermodynamics refers to processes that occur without changes to the system. That doesn’t really apply here. “Spontaneous” boiling otherwise makes sense in the context of superheated water that starts boiling at the slightest nudge. This might very well be what she meant. I’m not even trying to say he proved her wrong. I’m saying he added insightful information. His conversation skills could use some work but accusing him of anything beyond that is a reach in my opinion.
Pretty sure it’s a reaction without any external energy input, which this is, but again, I’m no astronaut.
I mean, you choose not to interpret it beyond that because to you it’s something other people are talking about. To someone who experiences this regularly it can apparently get really annoying, hence the negative reactions.
unfounded assumption of ignorance in the other party
That’s the joke. Haha, stupid astronaut, you are supposed to know.
It’s obviously too early to make that joke with an astronautess.
If it were, it wouldn’t be a good joke, because this exactly conforms to the thermodynamic definition of spontaneity. Saying it is spontaneous is, quite exactly, simple thermo.
Did you just mansplain mansplaining!?
When will men learn to stop trying to share information?!
You got me in the first part
I hope this is sarcasm though
I just saw a person in a suit, then read the “mansplaining” comment, then went back and saw the posters name.
It feels so forced or I am just oblivious. I thought the response was an asshole being an “acktuallllllly” response.
He’s not being pedantic, he’s just obviously not familiar with the vocabulary used in chemistry (although he pretends to be).
No he’s making a specific type of joke, but if he were wrong then say that instead
And if you want more of that type of joke, look up not ken m
This!!!
It’s Kev M.
What happened to Ken M?
Ken M has smooth skin
He’s just trying to combat misinformation, the gall to accuse someone of sexism after being wrong is staggering.
She wasn’t wrong though. It does happen spontaneously in that it is happening without apparent external cause. There is an external cause, the change in pressure, but it is not apparent. And most people are aware that water boils at low pressures at room temps. He even said it was “basic thermo”, so of course a NASA astronaut would know about this basic scientific phenomenon, as would most people.
Do you honestly believe that the astronaut doesn’t understand how boiling water works?
Is there a better term for it?
I feel like mansplaining as a word is similar to feminism as a word. It has assumption of gender rooted into it but its gone past that at this point.
but its gone past that at this point
Maybe it shouldn’t. I doubt people would like the word feminism being used if it inherently painted women as sexist.
Lots of people going for the downvote button but still no better word for the concept has come up.
Which is a shame. I was hoping to find a word where you could use the meaning without the topic suddenly changing to sexism.
deleted by creator
There genuinely isn’t a word, beyond maybe being patronizing
At least not in common English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_supra_crepidam
Would Latin work? 😵
People love to be pedantic as an “own” because they think it makes them look smart. And a lot of the times it actually works / is rewarded.
But is he wrong?
Spontaneous boiling is the scientifically correct term, so, yes, he is wrong for correcting her.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="spontaneous+boiling"
He’s obnoxious and uncalled for 🤷🏼♀️
But is he wrong? Isn’t mansplaining unless he’s wrong.
Do you think the girl is more or less of an asshole for calling someone a mansplainer when they aren’t?
He is, because spontaneous is, in fact, the correct term here.
But also, mansplaining just means that someone explains something to another person when it’s painfully obvious that the other person knows everything they’re explaining, often way better than the person who’s doing the explaining. Usually requires the over confidence that comes with unreflected privilege, such as being a man who subconsciously assumes that their gender gives them intellectual authority. Being wrong isn’t a requirement for mansplaining. This would be a textbook example even if he had left out the first sentence (the part where he’s wrong).
He is, because spontaneous is, in fact, the correct term here.
Aha. I didn’t know that
He’s obnoxious and uncalled for 🤷🏼♀️
Not an answer to my question. But ok.
“Spontaneous” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
This guy seems to think it’s equivalent to “by magic”.
It doesn’t take a lack of understanding of the word to arrive at the guy’s conclusion. It just takes an autistic reading of the word “water”. Water WILL boil in those conditions. Just like we don’t say water “spontaneously” boils when heated up in a kettle even though it’s the exact same thing happening.
So in the abstract, the guy is correct. Though, there is also a bottle of water in the picture, and when discussing which specific water will boil, it’s a guessing game, hence “spontaneous”. “Spontaneous” totally works for discussing the water in the picture.
One of the things that “spontaneous” doesn’t mean is “without cause”. Also, the astronaut doesn’t mention the water in the picture. She mentions water generally.
Like I said, it takes an autistic reading of the text.
“Autistic” doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’d characterize your use of the word as discriminatory and offensive.
No, you just don’t understand it yourself. Many social quirks and awkwardness is because of these sorts of abnormal thought patterns that make people arrive at weird conclusions. They are in fact, an important part of diagnosing autism vs scizophrenia and many other mental disorders, as in some situations, these weird conclusions can make someone seem pretty loony, or make them shut down socially when they realize they’ve misunderstood. So you being offended by this explanation just means you do not understand nor empathise with autistic people.
I’m not saying these are the only things that make someone autistic, or that all autistic people will have such peculiar trains of thought. Just that it is common in the realm of such disorders. Autism is a MASSIVE spectrum, because it describes symptoms, not causes.
So while this type of behavior might eventually get fully separated from autism in to things like social communication disorder, that’s more of a consequence of psychiatrists/etc slowly picking appart that massive umbrella of “autism”, not that it wasn’t or isn’t currently part of it.
I hope she brought enough tampons
For those who don’t get the joke:
Sally Ride, first female NASA astronaut to go to space: "I remember the engineers trying to decide how many tampons should fly on a one-week flight; they asked, “Is 100 the right number?”
“No. That would not be the right number.”
I mean, the 10 ish day long mission that recently took 9 months happened, actually with a woman on board. If you said “100 is too much lol” and opted for 10, you’d be laughing out the other side of your face when you started having to improvise sanitation supplies after month three.
Except that 9 months took place on a space station. There were regular cargo missions to the station. And they could have been brought back at any nearly any point if necessary. Other astronauts literally went up and came back from the Station in that 9 months.
The timeframe being so long was almost entirely about the Starliner itself and what they were going to do with a known defective and potentially unusable spacecraft, where the only trained pilots were those astronauts, not anything with the astronauts themselves.
If the station wasn’t an option for whatever reason (despite it literally being part of the planned mission), then other contingencies would have been available or at least planned already. This wasn’t an Apollo 13 situation where not making it back was a serious concern.
There were regular cargo missions to the station.
I guess you’d run out of food before tampons without cargo shipments? Although if they are using error bars for the food, they might want to use simiar error bars for tampons too? 🤷
Yeah but drag would still rather have 100 tampons than no tampons in that situation.
To be fair, at the time, there was no ISS for the shuttle to dock to, the shuttle pretty much was all they had. It was designed for missions of about 10 days, and could be expanded to about 17 days if needed. If they needed to stretch it up to a month to go beyond that for her to have a second period, I suspect that would rather have used that cargo capacity for some extra food and such and dealt with her free-bleeding, and much beyond that they’d need to come down one way or another or just die in space.
♻️ Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. ♻️
Thanks. A little surprised by the current proportion of people that didn’t understood that reference.
It was almost half a century ago
Thanks, I was really hoping for a gut punch right about now
No problem, old timer.
Get off my lawn
To be fair, I have absolutely no idea how many tampons a woman would need either, although 10 per day seems high.
They last 4-8 hours. Most women bleed for 3-7 days. So on the outer edge, you could need 42. I’ve never gone through more than a box of 24 in a cycle. But the US hadn’t put a menstruating person in space before, who knew if being in space would somehow unleash a geyser of mysterious lady fluids never before seen by man.
To condemn NASA a little bit further: NASA engineering also insisted that Sally Ride absolutely had to have a flight makeup kit. They went to the trouble to design one and make sure everything would work in zero-g. It went up and came back down completely unopened.
I mean what do women do besides menstruate and look pretty??
who knew if being in space would somehow unleash a geyser of mysterious lady fluids never before seen by man.
Fetish unlocked…
And in that moment a new kind of propulsion was discovered
I like to imagine replies are more often for future readers than for the OP.
And also it’s quite spontaneous. It’s not like you have to thump it to start it boiling. When the pressure gets to the right mark, it just starts.
He’s right tho, so…?
You should look up the definition of boiling.
It isn’t that he’s wrong, it’s that his input was both unnecessary and irrelevant.
Also, spontaneity is fairly vague. At best he’s just arguing semantics
It says in textbooks that in a vacuum water will spontaneously boil so arguing that it’s not spontaneous is wrong.
It happens as pressure decreases but unlike conventional boiling where you can see nucleate boiling it can instead happen all at once without you adding heat to the system
Most importantly he’s trying to argue semantics with a person who is much smarter than him and then ends it with a condescending “simple thermo”.
Large airplane flies overhead.
Wouldn’t say it flies. It just glides because a giant threw it
Simple aerodynamics
Are all image links on Lemmy.zip blocked by cloudflare?
EDIT seems to be working again now.
I’m having issues with the proxied ones (451 Unavailable for legal reasons). Luckily you can use Redirector or similar to un-proxy them automatically.
I’m using a web app on an iPhone. Not sure that will work for me.
It happens sometimes for me too, short periods only tho (last few months).
I wanted to say I have no problems. Then I remembered I’m on Lemmy.zip and this is maybe why.
It’s a pedantic take that makes sense and is fun. It relies on spontaneous having multiple meanings.
A spontaneous person randomly does weird things. A spontaneous occurring change happens without the environment promoting it.
There is no man’s planning. This is willful ignorance to enable a joke.
Edit: literally Kev M
