Update 22-10-12: This blog has been reposted on The Good Men Project. Check out their site great articles on a wide range of issues centered around men and identity in 21c.
Today I am looking for help. I need words.
When writing about men and women I obviously find myself referring to people of a given sex by a collective term such as “men” or “women”. In order to avoid my writing sounding repetitive I try and use other words that mean the same.
In the case of men I find this easy and have a bunch of the synonyms at my disposal.
Men, males, blokes, chaps, gents, guys, fellas, dudes, lads, boys.
To my knowledge none of these are considered offensive (please let me know if I am wrong) to anybody.
My problem comes when trying to find words for women. There are certainly several such terms but many are contraindicated for use as they are considered patronising, belittling or demeaning.
Sure we have the basics: - women, ladies, females - but in a lengthy article even these can get repetitive. So what are my alternatives?
Showing posts with label introspection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label introspection. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Mansplaining - A Man Explains
The inspiration for today's blog is a single word - "Mansplaining".
This is apparently a term to describe men talking patronisingly to women. Simple enough, but web dictionaries (OED online has no references) indicate that people of either sex can be accused of this.
My issue is not with the concept - men can be very patronising both to women and to other men. I get the intent behind the word. Feminism particularly seems to be a space where men often patronise women and denigrate the experiences of those women. Men use words and phrases like "Feminazi" or "Female Logic" even "Women’s Problems" to dismiss the arguments of 50% of the population. They never explain their conclusions or try to point out why arguments may be fallacious, they just dismiss an argument with a trite phrase. I feel "mansplaining" is a word that allows similar behaviour. Try to take part in the debate, add some context, and you’re dismissed as a "mansplainer". If someone is patronising, call them patronising - there’s no need for a new word. Similar to ‘privilege’, which I discussed in my last post, labelling something as mansplaining can just be a trite way of dismissing an argument without the need for any apparent rationale.
This is apparently a term to describe men talking patronisingly to women. Simple enough, but web dictionaries (OED online has no references) indicate that people of either sex can be accused of this.
My issue is not with the concept - men can be very patronising both to women and to other men. I get the intent behind the word. Feminism particularly seems to be a space where men often patronise women and denigrate the experiences of those women. Men use words and phrases like "Feminazi" or "Female Logic" even "Women’s Problems" to dismiss the arguments of 50% of the population. They never explain their conclusions or try to point out why arguments may be fallacious, they just dismiss an argument with a trite phrase. I feel "mansplaining" is a word that allows similar behaviour. Try to take part in the debate, add some context, and you’re dismissed as a "mansplainer". If someone is patronising, call them patronising - there’s no need for a new word. Similar to ‘privilege’, which I discussed in my last post, labelling something as mansplaining can just be a trite way of dismissing an argument without the need for any apparent rationale.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Lessons in blogging
So it seems this writing lark is not as easy as it looks. Sure, I can arrange words in a coherent order on a page, but writing to a theme and sticking with it is not so simple.
I started out my last post with what, in my head, were clear ideas on how I wanted to progress. Even while writing I found new material that agreed or disagreed with me and led me off track, sometimes mid paragraph. This led to me varying the focus of the piece without really seeing how this changed the whole substance of the article
So my first lesson; Write one post at a time. If an idea doesn't fit in here, don't force it, there will be a place for it later, or it may just turn out to be a bad idea.
I started out my last post with what, in my head, were clear ideas on how I wanted to progress. Even while writing I found new material that agreed or disagreed with me and led me off track, sometimes mid paragraph. This led to me varying the focus of the piece without really seeing how this changed the whole substance of the article
So my first lesson; Write one post at a time. If an idea doesn't fit in here, don't force it, there will be a place for it later, or it may just turn out to be a bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)