Given that manspreading itself is only 4 years old, feel free to make up your own word.

Mari-LouA How can a term that appears in a gender-connoted environment and which is gender-connoted in meaning be stripped of that? It would be a contradiction in terms....The term is meant to be what it is. I would not geld it. If you are in an airplane seat, no one would care, really. No one faces you in an airplane seat. It's gendered by definition.

I do not really find a problem with the term: what I do find a problem with is the lack of leg space on planes and buses. I measure 192 cm. and invariably need to sit in the aisle seat just so I have a place to put my knees. Imagine my discontent when once I was forced to fly to Korea from Atlanta in the middle seat...

@Cascabel Yikes, very exiguous. [I always thought you were a woman. ]

@Lambie did this phenomenon and the need for this term only arise in the early-2000s? I think not. What did commuters call people who took up more than their fair space?

There is something you are not picking up on by since you are in Italy. It's not about taking up room, really. (Or that came later) It's about a man sitting in a chair, facing you (a woman) with his legs spread apart. That was the original meaning as far as I know. Also, it has a cousin: mansplaining. :)

@Lambie Yikes...how disingenuous of me. My wife will be amused (hetero).

Other helpful links: 1) blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/09/04/… 2) neologisms.blogs.wm.edu/2016/04/11/manspreading 3) theneweuropean.co.uk/culture/… 4) neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=list&d=1&p=5&w1=M 5) theatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/…

@Lambie -- I always thought the issue was about taking up too much space. It's fine, if the bus is fairly empty, to spread out and take up the two seats on a bench, but as soon as it starts to get a little more crowded, the polite thing to do is to pull yourself together to take up one seat only, leaving room for someone to sit in the other. I've seen guys sitting on a crowded bus with their legs spread such that even if you wanted to, you couldn't sit next to them. (Like this example.)

As such, it does seem to be a male thing; men are bigger, etc. She-bagging, on the other hand, is based on a stereotype about women -- that they like to shop. (I can tell you that my wife hates to shop while I tend to buy more than I should.) So I, personally, wouldn't use she-bagging, but probably would use manspreading.

@Mari-LouA Four years ago is mid 2010s, not early-2000s. Plus, what's wrong with "leg spreading"?

@AzorAhai the point of the comment, addressed to Lambie, is that the typical sitting posture of men already existed before the term manspread was coined.

@Mari-LouA You might find this counter-argument to the biology explanation you gave interesting. Also, manspreading is now a word in dictionaries (Oxford, as you cited, but also Merriam-Webster) that literally means a man who is spreading his legs on a public seat. The dictionaries don't equate it with anything to do with sexism. Although, actually, it is something done by rude men. If a man objects to the term, I'm not sure what that says about him . . .

Space-hogging urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Space%20hogging

My word..just thinking about public travel in the future I see myself with knees clenched up to my chin, huddled shoulders, and face down to avoid eye-contact. As usual, when requesting a "sex-neutral" term to describe just about anything on this site (or any other) the discussion turns into a free-for-all (or loose scrum, depending on your side of the pond). Sad!

Gender neutrality is boring.

“but I had considered it mainly to be a humorous term that was basically stating a truth.“ many sexist and racist remarks are explained exactly like that. “but it's true ...“

Ahh, now I get it. The four anonymous downvotes. Some users think I'm a rabid feminist. Obviously those who know nothing about me, and how convenient they choose to ignore the fact that I live in Italy and I have not been exposed to the controversy. [continued]

[cont'd] A word like the N-word is clearly racist, and calling someone "retarded" is highly offensive but even more so when the person being bullied has impaired intelligence development. But "manspreading" I believed was lighthearted, it doesn't insult all men, it doesn't insult someone's mental capacities, or their culture or the colour of their skin. I realize now, it is very insulting to rude and selfish men, and some men object to the term.

@Mari-LouA You make it sound like being thought of as a feminist is somehow a form of accusation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider manspreading to be a sexist word and to look for an alternative (upvoted).

Downvotes seem very unreasonable here.

@gerrit being thought of as a rabid feminist or man hater is something I find frankly shocking and distressing, but not all that surprising.

@Mari-LouA I am rather confused. Do you speculate the downvoters think of you as a rabid feminist or man hater because you used the term manspreading, or because you are seeking an alternative to the term manspreading?

@gerrit ask the anonymous downvoters, I know I am surmising, but they must object to the question for some reason. The entire question was prompted by the comment "remove misandry"

To chicken out is unfriendly to chicken and a seat hog is unfriendly to hogs ;)

The discussion leads to me think... why not just spreading?

So if you are male and don't like the term "manspreading", you are "rude and selfish". Got it

@LightnessRacesinOrbit I said some men object to the term. Am I wrong?

@LightnessRacesinOrbit as to your off-topic question (in the comments) about how do I know if the nameless user was male; do you think I would say so without first checking their username, photo, and profile page? Should I have named him? NO. I posted my question because I was unaware of the political and sociological issues surrounding this expression. It's quite interesting to see how many users seem to take offence.

And some users' reactions and comments confirms that the term "manspreading" is deemed by them to be biased and/or churlish.

@Mari-LouA You are responding to something I didn't say. My statement related to your claim: "it is very insulting to rude and selfish men"

@Mari-LouA If the user is "nameless" I cannot see how that information is available, hence my confusion.

@Mari-LouA Now I see that you meant to say you were anonymising them for the sake of the question. Thanks for clarifying

(I was thinking of a user123456 with no biography available)

Eight downvotes and counting. This too shall pass.

Let's remind ourselves that the question is asking What would be a gender-neutral* equivalent of manspreading. A term that would not offend men, but* could be applied to both sexes? I am asking for a gender neutral term. I don't want to offend anyone.

If we can't talk about our words then our language is pretty useless :)

TBH, "Man cave" could be considered pejorative as well, if we're casting behavior based on stereotypes rooted in observed behavior. Yet, many men boast of building out a man cave. I think it's the spreading part of the word that alludes to a connotation and meaning that's considerably less benign.

All in all, I suspect the question was more a vent for than actual impetus for any ill-will.

@TimPost Oh, hello Tim. I've seemed to have stirred up a wast's nest, haven't I? I didn't think it would go that badly but erm, I underestimate the Internet. :P

I think we need to learn how to have these conversations without questioning our understanding of the universe, and practice is good.

:)

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

That feels a little like a jab to me, and might cause some to find it disingenuous in nature, even though the rest of the question is quite practical. Maybe change it to "Didn't realize the term would be considered sexist, always considered it light-hearted, similar to "man cave" and other 'punny' phrases." or something.

Finally, (and a man, too) who doesn't take this so seriously. Yes, well it seems I was right, there are some men who find the term sexist. Obviously, it's not scientific or anything but based on a couple of readings/articles etc I found on the Internet

Well, I should note that I'm a pretty outspoken feminist. But I wasn't always, and ever since I can remember, I found witty phrases encapsulating the odd things that men sometimes do to be funny.

But again, what matters are the feelings of individual readers, but ... that's why you're asking for a different way to say it ... so I don't get the uproar, to be honest.

@TimPost both comments starred, and noted down for future reference.

But honestly, if this transcript is us feeling uncomfortable, we're still way better than most other places on the Internet, and that's something everyone should be proud of.

(granted, marginally better than horrible isn't great, but I like to think it's quite a bit above marginally). Anyway, ping me if needed, and thanks everyone for keeping it respectful and even-keeled.

@Mari-LouA A word can be offensive not just for intrinsic meaning, but because of the context where it's normally used. As someone in Italy, I'm sure you appreciate that "retarded" intrinsically just means "slowed". In English, it originated as a clinical term for someone with slowed mental development. Kids being kids, it quickly developed into an insult, and now it's purely pejorative (in English).

Likewise, as you mention, "manspreading" is a recent term, despite referring to a posture which has been around for ages. The reason for this is that "manspreading" gained traction not as a purely descriptive term, but one with political implications. How actively pejorative it is, I won't hazard a guess. But you can't divorce the word from the political context it (almost always) appears in.

My interpretation of the downvotes and pushback is that the wording of the question crosses over from a simple position of personal ignorance ("I was unaware that some might find the term misandronistic.") over into active incredulity ("I am flabbergasted that anyone would find it misandronistic!") You can't claim ignorance of the context and then simultaneously claim that others should actively disregard the context they're aware of.

Even if not intentional, the question comes off less like a genuine desire for a non-offensive word, and more like you want a sop to shoo the offended away ('don't draw me into your drama, you "rude and selfish men"').

Sorry - that should be "the wording of the question comes off ..." -- The core question itself ("is there an inoffensive way to say this") is fine, it's just the phrasing that may be problematic.

Somehow missed this previously:

> I realize now, it is very insulting to rude and selfish men, and some men object to the term.

that ... kinda alienates potential friends.

I fully agree that it's important to be firm that women (and others) have issues that need more attention and recognition from society (and our language) at large. But it's unwise to imply that anyone that doesn't yet realize that is rude or selfish - that just closes folks off to what you're saying.

So remember, be nice - you'll find that this network has a lot of empathy and a community that's happy to look outside itself, but blanket insults shut that down pretty quickly, which could explain part of that reaction.

I would have noted that previously, but somehow, I didn't read or parse it properly while going through the transcripts.

@TimPost the downvotes occurred before I posted that remark in chat, and what about everything else I have written. That doesn't count? Anyway, this storm in a teacup will blow over by Sunday at the most.

Storm in a teacup... I haven't heard that in years :)

@R.M. ("I am flabbergasted that anyone would find it misandronistic!") that's your interpretation, and perhaps how some have interpreted it. I was flabbergasted by the comment that accompanied the suggested edit: "remove misandry" I think that was over the top and unnecessary. It was that comment that spurred me to do my own research, and to then, thanks to @Azor Ahai's answer, to modify the wording in that particular answer.

The question is good, and I think you've got a good answer for when the issue is purely space. I do think, though, that there is a significant difference between a person intruding into someone's personal space with bits of their person versus someone putting up inanimate barriers between themselves and other persons. Both might be considered rude when space is at a premium on public transportation, but the motivations and effects can still be rather different.

For what it's worth, I'm a man, and think the term humorous. It's pretty ridiculous to take offense to the term "manspreading" on the grounds it means only men are rude on transit, and all men are rude on transit. But for whatever reason, some people get very hyped up about it. That said, I think the intro comment "Who knew that the term manspreading is considered sexist by some... men?" is kinda off, but I decided just to ignore it.

(To be clear, I think it's ridiculous because that's obviously not what it means)

I repeat: How can a term that is gendered by design not be gendered? You may not like it, you may not use it, you may think whatever you want about it. That said, the term came into existence "after" seat hogging or taking up too much space. Therefore, my objection is solely on those grounds. How can you degender a meaning that is invented in order to signify gendering??

I think the question is slightly naive. It's like saying, What's an ungendered way to say a bitchy woman? Is it even possible? I don't think it is. [fyi, I am a woman].

And what about mansplaining? Hm? I guess we need womansplaining there, to balance things.

@Lambie That's kind of what I was getting at: "manspreading" was coined to describe a particular act that is, if not inherently gendered, then certainly experienced and interpreted differently based on the respective genders of perpetrator and victim. So it might be a sub-set of "seat hogging" and "seat hog" might work as a substitute in some contexts, but in other contexts it's not going to be nearly descriptive enough.

I don't mind having discussions, and I don't mind if users disagree with how I phrased something. I did the best to convey my initial surprise to what I honestly thought was a lighthearted term. I've now replace "men" with "people" but I know it's already pointless and maybe too little too late. What I do object though are those who are sore lusers, especially those who want to goad me, and post inflammatory remarks in the comment section.

holy moly theres so many words here, i did not want this many!

@the0ther yeah, it's probably one of the longest threads I've seen too.

"[man spreading] can show swagger, confidence, and suggest dominance" - I normally come to SO to learn interesting tidbits. This brings me back to my worthless days of college, particularly a feminism course which decided stores shouldn't be allowed to sell pink clothing to baby girls and blue clothing to boys.

@aaaaaa How ungenerous :(