@Mari-LouA Cripes. -11 so far. People are idiots.

@Mitch so, speaking as a man, and as a computer engineer/expert, you are not offended by the tone of the question? And, instinctively, did you look for any detail that might explain the high number of downvotes? It's also important to point out that the downvoters are users who have accumulated at least 125 rep. God knows how many there would have been if users could DV thanks to their association bonus.

I meant ....*incidentally*, did you look.....

@TimPost It's ironic. Many users are downvoting a question that explicitly states I would prefer an alternative to the term "manspread" because I realise some people take offense. Yet, I've been accused of misandry and denigrating terminology. Not very good publicity for SO's proposed upgraded image, is it? :P It might be my imagination but I sense an air of subdued anger and resentment.

Hello visitor! Come to see what the fuss is all about? You are welcome to leave a comment.

I didn't downvote, but I get the sense that there're some misunderstandings here, so a few quick notes:

1. "Manspreading" is kind of a bad word to start with because it's probably not very recognizable. At least personally, I can't recall having heard it before reading this question, nor is the word self-explanatory. Beyond concerns about sexism and whatnot, these seem to be strong reasons to seek an alternative.

2. "Manspreading" is obviously sexist, but the post seems quick to conflate sexism with offensiveness. To be fair, "sexist" often implies "offensive" in many groups, but it can also be kind of an intellectual observation too - for example, while I'm saying that it's obviously sexist, I don't mean to imply that it should be taken as offensive.

3. The post probably got downvotes and some negative reaction because it reads a lot like a rant, to the point that I'm surprised that the mods haven't required it to be edited. For an example of a question that contained a lot of ranting that the mods did require to be edited, there's this one on SE.Politics (Revision #4). The asker tried to rollback the edit, but the mods required the ranting to be removed.

Downvoted for the first sentence, "Who knew that the term manspreading is considered sexist by some... people?" Get rid of that, please. This is the first time I've heard of that expression; it's so obviously sexist that that question doesn't need to be asked.

Not to say that "manspreading" doesn't exist. I can't do it myself (I'm very short for a man, and rather thin to boot), but I've certainly seen the practice. I've also seen many other ways in which people discourage others from taking a seat that public transportation never should have provided. While I'm short (5'6") and thin (32" waist), many of those public transportation seats are too small for me. That people hog seats is not surprising.

@Nat Oh, OK. It reads like a rant. Really?? Next time I'll just write the question title and copy it in the body. No background story, no references, no quotations. (I'm not ranting, just being philosophical) This is my last comment on the subject. To visitors: Feel welcomed to submit comments and thoughts on the subject.

@Mari-LouA References and relevant context are generally helpful. For example, if you'd linked-and-quoted the definition of "manspreading" from the best available source (presumably Urban Dictionary or Wikipedia), that'd have improved the question statement. Likewise, the research that you did on the etymology of the term seemed constructive. However, details of your interaction with an anonymous user are more in the ranting category.

@Mari-LouA Incidentally, I'm mostly just curious - was the first line not meant to be offensive? I mean, honestly, I'm not the sort who cares, but it was my impression that that was the intent. I mean, it's:

> Who knew that the term manspreading is considered sexist by some... people?

The idiom, "Who knew that [something] is considered [whatever] by some" is generally meant to imply a dubious position.

Then in "... people", the ellipsis indicates a hesitant pause, while the italicized "people" is kind of an idiomatic way of suggesting that you have little good to say of them.

@Mari-LouA 1) "as a man/engineer" - a lot of this does matter as to perspective so both those are very relevant. But we're not entirely defined by qualities, I'm only one voice. 2) I am not offended. but a) as a dude (Hi @Lambie!), it would be manipulative or childish to take offense, being in the nominal strength position and b) I more see a tendentiousness in the first sentence, which 3) incidentally, I see now might account for those downvotes....

... There are so many 'What is the non-gendered/other gendered version of X?' especially when it is not obvious (like the archaic 'aviatrix'). 4) I didn't realize you need 125 to DV. But I think more voting is done by higher rep people anyway.

All that said, it's silly to think that 'manspreading' is not a thing, or is demeaning or derogatory to men, given that they are (as mentioned before) in the strength position. It can't not be sexist (if that is the right word), but is not hurtful.

That said, it is always a good thing to have a more neutral term for those instances when it is called for.

The 60's term 'male chauvinist pig' is sexist and maybe derogatory, but can't be hurtful (OK maybe drop the 'pig' part) because it's calling a thing what it is.

@Mitch I would say this: hogging space or seating came first. Manspreading came second. manspreading came about in a very specific context. This is not a chicken-and-egg thing. There is a chronology factor here. Mitch, I am not a dude. :)

@Lambie I just mentioned your name because we had the 'dude' conversation before. I know you're not a 'dude', I was just funning with you, trying to include you.

Also, I agree with you that 'manspreading' is a very recent neologism, and the term 'hogging' for taking up too much seating is very generic and much much older.

Also, you don't have to be female to recognize that a dude being 'expansive' with his lower extremities to, unconsciously or not, claim extra space is not uncommon (very recognizable).

@Mitch, Ah right. :) Silly me. They also do it on Tv shows, don't they? Sometimes?

@Lambie It is unfortunate that a lot of our 'real world' knowledge comes from TV/movies which is written by writers who are a special breed, and made up out of cliches and myths that may or may not be true. Maybe it is introspection ("It's so relaxing to just ... lounge with your legs sticking across the aisle or let your knees fall to the side")

@Mitch Well, I meant talk shows, there is the host's table and then a guest chair or couch. Guys sometimes sit that way, don't they? It is not just on public buses.

@Lambie Oh. Yeah. And there they aren't taking up anybody else's space. They're just, not exactly exposing themselves, just looking.. ungainly?

@Mitch Yes, and that was one of my original comments. Exactly. I can imagine it might be comfortable but doesn't one want to at least give the appearance of seriousness on TV? It's somehow just over the top when audience facing. :)