Why do men do this?

Along with various inalienable rights and governing principles, the tendency for men to talk over women has now been officially recognised by the US supreme court. Newly introduced rules to the structure of oral arguments are in place to address the issue of male justices and attorneys (extremely regularly) interrupting their female colleagues.

Far from being a mere everyday annoyance, “mansplaining” (or the ideologically adjacent “manterrupting”) can interfere with democracy. You can literally be a supreme court justice and still get shouted down like someone’s little sister.

For women, having your side side of a conversation being limited to short bursts of “But … ”, “Yes, and … ”, “Can I just … ” – is all too familiar. A 2014 study at George Washington University even found that, when speaking to women, men interrupt 33% more often than when speaking to men.

But what does this constant interrupting look like outside of the rarefied confines of the judicial branch of US government? Here’s a mundane example. I’m out for lunch with my partner, and we stop at a food truck, overpriced “street food” that you have to hurriedly eat standing up, outside. My partner, who has coeliac disease, asks if a particular item on the menu is gluten-free. The bearded food truck guy says that, no, as it contains mustard, it also contains gluten. All mustard – according to him – is thickened with wheat flour. My partner, who has been checking ingredient lists meticulously for coming on two decades, knows this not to be true. Tentatively (she’s the non-confrontational sort), she corrects him. But no, the seller disagrees. Suddenly this guy has a PhD in glutenology from the University of Mustard.

As Dr Food Truck rants about his credentials and expertise, my partner’s expression falls. Ordering food is often an ordeal for her, as people have either never heard of coeliac disease, or mistakenly think they know everything about it. What’s more, this guy is telling her that if she’s had mustard before, she’s “probably fine”. She – who was late diagnosed and spent her entire childhood in severe intestinal pain – tries to get a word in edgeways, but is steamrollered by someone clearly used to talking at women, uninterrupted. So I (the semi-confrontational sort) chime in. Not raising my voice, and keeping my tone as neutral as possible, I tell him that maybe, as an actual, certified coeliac, my partner knows what she’s talking about. Dr Food Truck tells me to “calm down”.

Women reading this will probably recognise it as a classic example of mansplaining. This, of course, is a term that has been in popular use (particularly online) since around 2009, and was named one of the New York Times’ words of the year in 2010. And it’s something women are on the receiving end of every time they’re interrupted and talked over by men who – on the basis of being men – believe they know better. And there’s little more simultaneously satisfying and galling than when some guy tries to get into it with a woman talking about – say – a movie, and she turns out to be one of the film’s directors.

Similarly, there have been several occasions on which men have tried to explain my own articles to me. In fact, if a man doesn’t see this, and then tries to mansplain mansplaining to me, I’ll be genuinely surprised. Or there was the time a male GP told me the pain I was in was “probably psychosomatic”, and then – unprompted – explained what he meant by “psychosomatic”. Usually I’m prepared to let medical professionals (male or otherwise) explain whatever they like to me. But being hit with “your symptoms are fake, and I’m going to convey this to you as if you were a child” is, in my humble womanly opinion, beyond the pale. What do you even say in such an instance? Still beats me. What I’ve learned as a woman is that if someone isn’t interested in your point of view, the dialogue is doomed from the get-go. We’re too often better off screaming into the void rather than trying to engage.

What’s really at stake when it comes to interrupting in order to mansplain is the respect (or lack thereof) for people’s lived experiences. There are many variations. I’ve seen “whitesplaining” for white people who try to explain racism to Black people. Or “ablesplaining” for able bodied people who think – for whatever reason – they know more about being disabled than actual disabled people. Having a subject you know all too well explained back to you by someone misinformed (often someone with an agenda) is always going to suck. But hey, there’s plenty of void left to scream into, though you might get interrupted in the process. (Eleanor Margolis, The Guardian 19 Oct 2021. Eleanor Margolis is a columnist for the i newspaper and the Guardian. (Edited for length)

My comment: Epicurus is reputed to have treated all those who visited him with deep respect, listening attentively to their points of view. For him gender equality was real. For me, too, it is real, especially since I have a spouse who is very smart, well-informed and with an impressive memory. Respect is part and parcel of love, but I am careful to conduct an actual conversation, regardless of gender.

Good deal?

A propos yesterday’s posting about student accommodation……… a study by researchers at Georgetown University found the the inflation-adjusted costs of attending college rose 169% between 1980 and 2019. Over the same period the earnings for workers aged 22 to 27 rose 19%. (CNBC.com).

My comment: One of the things I find amazing are the exorbitant salaries of the university administrators in the US. What these people add to the education of the students I am not sure, but my instinct is that they are helping to foster a disillusionment with higher education and it’s cost/benefits. That would be a crying shame.

Doing anything for money

A college dorm designed by Warren Buffet’s right hand man, Charlie Munger, is being compared to an 11 storey prison. Buffet has donated 200 million dollars to the University of California, Santa Barbara, provided they adopt Munger’s design, in which 94% of the rooms have no windows, the idea being to encourage students to spend more time outside in the common areas.
The rooms will have ”virtual windows” made with LED lights.The consulting architect Dennis McFadden promptly resigned when told about it, describing the concept as “unsupportable as an architect, a parent and a human being”.

My comments: Up and up go the college fees, and in this case the students are rewarded by being deprived of daylight, presumably relying as well on air conditioning. I would demand my money back.

Society is getting dumber and dumber. Epicurus might have advocated politely refusing donation from Warren Buffet. In England, the local planning authority would probably ban the proposed building. But there money talks, but not so loudly.

Leaves you dumbfounded!

A school-district official in Southlake, Texas was recorded advising staff to offer students “opposing views” and “other perspectives” on the Holocaust. Administrator, Gina Peddy, was responding to a new state law requiring schools to offer “diverse and contending perspectives” on “controversial issues”. A district spokeswomen said the law has left “all Texas teachers in a precarious position.”

My comment: There are NO valid “opposing views” or “other perspectives” possible. Not, anyway, to decent, civilized and humane people. I think I mentioned this before (excuse me!) but my father left me a leather-thonged whip that he took off a NAZI guard in a North German death camp. I only once saw my father puce with fury and disgust, but relating the story of the pile of naked bodies near the entrance made him sick with disgust.

A curse on guns in the hands of amateurs

So the 18 year old, armed with an automatic weapon suited best for military use, is fully acquitted of murder. So be it. I respect jury verdicts. But there are people who question why a teenager would be allowed to possess such a weapon of war and intervene with it in public, apparently with the apparent approval of citizens of Wisconsin. Yes, under the law he is acquitted by the jury, but the rest of the common sense world outside are asking how a teenager is allowed buy such a weapon, and what were the the parents thinking (if they even knew what he was doing).

I believe that Epicurus would raise questions of upbringing and education, and the absence of police on the spot to keep the peace and deter teenage hotheads and others.

At 18 I, too, had a sub-machine gun. The difference was that I was in the army, properly trained, super-conscious of the dangerous weapon hanging by my side,in a dangerous environment, but under the watchful eye of a sergeant-major who had served in the Second World War.