In some respects, there are overlaps between the three terms I’ve chosen, and what randomly comes to mind is one part of the enduring self-help book Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. I’ll be honest in that, while I have read a fair number of self-help books (I once managed the Mind, Body and Spirit section of a Waterstones, and having a curious mind myself, read extensively), I rarely inhale, if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphor. Any book which makes people think and question has some positives to it, though you do get some curious and batshit suggestions. But to return to Mars, one of the ‘insights’ it gives is that a fundamental difference between male and female approaches in western society, is that women discuss difficulties in order to gain support, solidarity, and empathy, and react to other women in a similarly supportive manner. If you tell a man a problem, he tries to fix it. And gets frustrated if he can’t, or his suggestions aren’t welcomed. The conflict posited in the book is that if a woman in a relationship with a male partner has had a bad experience, she needs to understand that what he is actually hearing is ‘help me’, not ‘be on my side’. And the man in the relationship with the woman needs to understand that she can and will sort her own problems out, but she sometimes just wants to feel supported and know he understands how she feels. As a man, I think there is probably some truth in that, though obviously its hugely over-simplified and a generalisation. From the male perspective, there is certainly an expectation in peer groups that any topic up for discussion which is potentially resolvable nudges an inherent urge to be the one to provide a workable solution. And also, a tendency to talk rather than listen, whether or not you’ve understood what the conversation is really about.
I’ve wondered on occasion whether these conflicted approaches are partially responsible for the terminology and concept of ‘mansplaining’ which has become so de rigueur in recent years. By de rigueur I mean more that it tends to be mis-applied to every instance of a man explaining, not that the patronising over-explanation isn’t a thing. It clearly is. Though in defence of the male population, there are sometimes generational, societal, and mixed-message reasons for this. But that is a separate rabbit hole. What I mean is, aside from the occasions where the phenomenon is genuinely and deliberately applied patronisingly (I won’t use the incorrectly used ‘misogynistically’ as I don’t believe in the majority of cases it is used with hatred or intention to demean), what a male may see as a perfectly rational and detailed explanation, which he’d also use without thought to another male, may be perceived as condescending, when all the man’s brain is saying is ‘give your opinion how to solve a problem’. Maybe the frustration of the recipient tends not to consider the possibility of men misunderstanding what is needed and trying ‘fix things’, and assumes condescension, and the rolling out of the ‘mansplaining’ moniker. The male, meanwhile, receiving no indication that his proposed solution is being considered, assumes he hasn’t explained it clearly enough, so redoubles his efforts. To go back to Mars, I think there’s a germ of truth of truth in the proposed explanation, which is probably why it continues to be a bestseller.
For those of you fuming that I’ve offered a mitigation for what is often called mansplaining, and no doubt some of you have fallen back on the ‘typical man!’ trope, re-read it. I said that I’ve often wondered, not that I have a comprehensive answer. I’m open to possibilities. I’m willing to change my mind and accept I may be wrong. Perversely, I’m more flexible now than I was when I was younger. This is something I wanted to promote in my narrative though. There is nothing wrong with questioning, with being wrong, with exploring other viewpoints. You may disagree with me, and that’s fine, but it isn’t a competition to win an argument. Sometimes you and I will have different views and sometimes one of us will amend our views, but the response to difference shouldn’t be an insult or defensiveness. That benefits no-one.
To return to mansplaining, I find it fascinating that the term has also morphed into a generic terminology for over explaining. In TV shows for example, whether the speaking protagonist is male or female doesn’t matter. The word has shifted meaning. Our understanding of words and their meaning and intention is something I’ll return to.
To go back to Mars for one final time though, I do find a lot of what is written there to be hokum, counter-intuitive, and of its time. Parts of it annoyed me, if I recall correctly, and I once began a parody which I hoped to would question some of the propositions and assumptions in a light-hearted way, to be called Men Don’t Wear Bras and Women Have No Penis. But I got bored after writing the first thirty or so pages so it remains forever unfinished and unread. I wonder if the original will continue to be a bestseller with the current generation, and it’s focus and almost obsession with gender identity? I suspect not.
Anyway, this concludes my slightly rambling introduction to the concept of myself as a ‘grumpy old man’. When my first novel, Man In The Bath, was published, some reviewers wondered if the protagonist and viewpoints were my own, or those of my fictitious lead character. The answer is that they are entirely fictitious, with the exception of the initial ‘philosophical debate’ about who might be considered to be the fifth Beatle. That was something I genuinely pondered in the bath one day. But that character of David Dunn is a bitter, flawed, misguided, and quite unpleasant character, and his rants were invented to fit that persona. The only parallel is that I like to consider questions, moral and factual, and explore as many angles as I can. What follows will be some of those ponderings. And you’ll be happy to know that they are written fully clothed, and are questions to myself as much as to any other person.
Stay safe,
Kit x