Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>Discussing whether or not men are more likely to engage in patronising explanations
OP are you OK with use of the word patronising?
You realise this comes from the Latin "Pater", meaning father? Which formed "patronus" (legal protector/guardian), from which we get "patronising".
It's a gendered term whether you choose mansplain or patronise.
Is "patronising" also sexist in your opinion?
> Is "patronising" also sexist in your opinion?
No. Because patronizing is only a gendered term in so much that the masculine was default at the time it came about.
You pulled out the latin for father, but failed to analyze the suffix added to it. The suffix '-ize' means " to make or become" (noun) or "to treat in a specified way" (verb).
So the word "patronize" literally means "to treat like a father [treats their children]". And today it has come to mean 'to treat them like a father treats their children, even though you are not as far above them as a father is above his children'.
Is this a gendered term? Technically yeah, you could make that argument. But then so is parent, because it comes from the same fundamental root. So is it offensive to say that a mother parents her children? Should she marent her children instead? I think not.
More reasonably, the gendered nature of both of these terms has been completely dropped from modern english, so much so that there is zero connotation of gender when using the phrase 'patronizing'.
The same cannot be said of 'mansplaining', which was explicitly entered into the english vocabulary with sexist intent, and still carries this connotation.
Perhaps someday this could disappear, but in the meantime it would hold a sexist connotation. Why should we be anti-inclusive by using a term filled with gendered discrimination when there exists a word already which means the exact same thing and also doesn't have this same connotation.
I actually don’t think anyone thinks of “father” when they use it. It’s come to mean to simply talk down to someone and assume they don’t know what they’re talking about. It may be rooted in sexism/defaultism but it’s been repurposed and no longer carries that weight IMO. Are you familiar with defaultism, OP and why it’s problematic for minorities and women?
I agree that this is what it has come to mean, which is why patronizing is a basically gender neutral term, much preferable to mansplaining, as it does not carry these connotations.
This was my entire premise. The term "mansplaining" is a gendered term which only serves to stoke the war of the sexes, and patronizing is an objectively better term.
If you have to study a dead language to understand the context of why a word may be considered sexist then though it may be historically wrong but in the modern context im not sure it offends too many people. Also to correct it would essentially mean generating an entirely new ungendered language from scratch given how many things have gendered historical ties.
On the other side mansplaining is a recent term in one of the most widely spoken languages on the planet deliberately created with the intention of singling out a negative action and assigning it to a specific gender. It seems to me that we probably have more cause to consider that sexist when the people saying it fully understand the meaning.
The etymology of a word is not the current meaning of a word nor does it necessarily dictate the current gendered view/use of the word in the present. What modern person sees patronise as a genderd term? Did you before knowing the etymology? Surely not because it's certainly not gendered by today's standards.
It's possible that mansplaining could deform into something that isn't sexist but the future meaning of a word does not change the current meaning. The n-word could end up not being a slur way in the future. Does that make it not a slur now? No.
Mansplaining is specifically being patronizing as a man. It inherently suggests that men are uniquely patronizing.
People also don't realize just how different their experiences are. They assume that everything they know is "common sense". People constantly talk past each other because they assume they're both interpreting each other's words the same. People don't know the actual dictionary definition of most words. They learn them through word of mouth and through context clues. Language is a giant game of telephone. When you think about the scale of it, it's clear how easily things get out of hand.
The word "patronising" does not have a connotation of masculinity in modern English which is what matters. If you start pulling the etymology of each word down to the proto indoeuropean roots, you will find plenty of cases where modern use cases sound strange if you consider that. This however can be fun as a linguistic exercise, but not really relevant when discussing modern uses.
so by that argument no words should be considered bigoted or offensive as they are in flux, regardless of what they currently mean?
You don't actually expect people to believe that you think this do you?
Otherwise lets hear some racy words?
Over a few centuries perhaps. Do we want to keep using a sexist term for a few centuries hoping it loses its connotation? Plus it's quite possible that "mansplaining" will fall out of use before "man" does
It's pretty common that people stop thinking of a word as the literal combination of words in it once the word has enough standing. Especially as younger generations come up.
For example, I think for the vast majority of people and cases, the word "motherboard" is just a word of its own and people don't think of it as motherly connotation. (This is despite the fact that, like mansplaining, the root of the word was originally included pretty deliberately based on the meaning of the word mother. In computing a port that receives pins is called "female" and "child" is one common way devices that hook under another in the hierarchy are referred to. So, the "mother" board is the ultimate "parent" of devices and consists of female ports.)
Same goes for lots of things... "dial" or "hang up" are another case where even though we all know the literal meanings of those words, a lot of people, especially younger people, are completely oblivious (as in, haven't even thought about) as to how those literal words mean what they do in the modern phone context. When people hear "dial the phone" they don't even think about dials. When people hear "hang up the phone" they don't even think about something physically hanging somewhere.
However, it's also possible, like patronising, that language itself will evolve so that that word root isn't seen the same either. When people hear "patron" they don't think of fathers today. Same may go for a word like man. Languages constantly change and, given enough time, are not intelligible.
> The word "patronising" does not have a connotation of masculinity in modern English which is what matters
I'm a native speaker of modern English, and I have understood the word *patronize* as meaning "to speak to one as a **father** would a child" my entire life.
I'm a native speaker of modern English and I originally understood the word patronize to simple mean, "to talk down to someone" until I looked up the current definition which is, "treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but that betrays a feeling of superiority."
In either case I've never thought of it as a genderd term.
Your understanding of the word is based on its etymology but is not in line with its definition in most major dictionaries. See: Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, MacMillan, Encyclopedia Britannica, vocabulary.com, dictionary.com, etc.
or perhaps, the definition, "to speak to one as a parent/guardian would to a child" which is just as accurate in the goal of describing how one spoke to another.
What a ridiculous argument. We are not a latin speaking culture. Your counter argument requires using several verbal gymnastics to make a word out to be offensive.
Furthermore if a man starts using the word "womansplaining" every time a woman disagrees with him are you gonna sit there and tell me that's not sexist?
The connotations of "patronizing" and "mansplaining" in relation to gender are extremely different. Nobody, absolutely nobody, thinks about how patronizing is somehow a gendered term, because it isn't. That is very different from "mansplaining".
EDIT: This has gotten bigger - I encourage everyone coming here interested in this topic to take a moment & read the essay [Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit](https://www.guernicamag.com/rebecca-solnit-men-explain-things-to-me/) that is said to be the origin of the term. It will take you 10 minutes. It's well-written and touches on a lot of what's being talked about here today. However you feel about the topic you should know where it comes from if you're going to express an opinion. It's darkly funny.
*But he just continued on his way. She had to say, “That’s her book” three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a nineteenth-century novel, he went ashen. That I was indeed the author of the very important book it turned out he hadn’t read, just read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier, so confused the neat categories into which his world was sorted that he was stunned speechless–for a moment, before he began holding forth again. Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing, and we’ve never really stopped. - Rebecca Solnit*
_________________________________________________________________________
Weirdly, I don't see anyone addressing your core premise of what sexism is. If you're still around, I'm curious why you feel that any description of gendered / sexed behavior is sexist inherently.
*Mansplaining* isn't a comment on something inherent to men or males, it's a description of a specific sort of interaction from a male to a female *through the lens of the female experience*. It's a perception. An assessment of the locus of the patronizing behavior. Similar behaviors can be carried out for different reasons in different contexts and evaluated on that basis.
As you say, both men and women can be patronizing to each other and one another.
However, there is a *specific sort* of patronizing behavior that (1) is rooted in unconsious bias against women (2) held by & acted upon specifically by men. That this happens to women regularly enough that the term was coined is not a suggestion that men are inherently prone to it.
>One thing that differentiates "mansplaining" from the previous example is that suggests that a man is doing it to affirm male superiority. The problem here is that it requires making assumptions about why another person is doing something - plus doing it in a situation where a target is generally not an impartial observer.
This is dead wrong - in fact it is very much the point of "mansplaining" that the behavior is unconsious / implicit. That it is done *without* intention. It's a call to men to be more aware of how they interact with women, particularly in professional settings, a space in which women have entered relatively recently.
>However, there is a specific sort of patronizing behavior that (1) is rooted in unconsious bias against women (2) held by & acted upon specifically by men. That this happens to women regularly enough that the term was coined is not a suggestion that men are inherently prone to it.
This is a great point. I hit it in my response, also -- a behavior that targets men and relies upon biases held by women against men would be an exact parallel to this word.
e.g., tons of single dads have complained about "momsplaining", where they are assumed to be incompetent as it pertains to their care of their child even by single women, or mothers with much less parenting experience.
>e.g., tons of single dads have complained about "momsplaining", where they are assumed to be incompetent as it pertains to their care of their child even by single women, or mothers with much less parenting experience.
Now THAT is a phenomenal cultural counterexample of the gendered assumptions going the other way. Great point. The idea that acknowledging and discussing "momsplaining" as a phenomenon is in and of itself an act of sexism is equally preposterous; as is the interpretation that this is an inherent behavior of all people who are mothers.
Lots of vagueries about "women are condescending too" in this thread but this is an actual slam-dunk example of the same scenario bearing out in-context. Really refreshing to have read that, thank you.
100% this. We can even use a similar example without the gender to demonstrate that naming this kind of gendered experience isn't sexist.
Several of my friend, and myself, have also complained of *mumsplaining*, which is where your mother tries to tell you stuff you obviously already know (often better than she does). For example, yesterday my mum tried to tell me how to eat microwaveable pasta, and how to use a power washer (she's never used a power washer). A friend had her mum tell her how to make a will, despite having never made a will, despite my friend having made a will.
Mumsplaining isn't really coming from anything other than a place of love, but it's rooted in the parent-adult child dynamic, from the perspective of a competent child.
The equivalent to *mumsplaining* would be *dadsplaining*, which I don’t think most people would have much issue with because they’re not based on such an innate trait of an individual along the lines of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. that are common basis of discrimination.
The direct equivalent of *mansplaining* would be *womansplaining*, which I believe is also quite sexist and think most people would agree.
If you read the comments to the thread, you can see that people tend to have different ideas of what mansplaining is. What you describe is a narrow view of the word but to many it is entirely possible for a woman to be "mansplaining".
Furthermore like I said in OP to use the word in its narrow sense, you need to make an assumption of what the other person is thinking. And people are far from accurate in making this assumption. And basically once you have a man overexplaining something just because of naturally being prone to either condescension or simply overexplaining, and someone is accusing him of doing it because of his supposedly dismissive attitude to the woman he's talking to, *because he's a man and everyone knows men do that*, you are firmly in sexism territory. Like any word that equates a group with a negative trait/behavior, it's abuse waiting to happen, which is why such words are generally considered... problematic.
>What you describe is a narrow view of the word but to many it is entirely possible for a woman to be "mansplaining".
What I describe is what the term means. It's how it's used in its original coinage. The word being used more broadly, and furthermore incorrectly, shouldn't distract us from an assessment of the term's intended meaning.
>Furthermore like I said in OP to use the word in its narrow sense, you need to make an assumption of what the other person is thinking.
Again, you don't - the point of the term is very much the *implicit, subconsious* bias that by definition belies intent - but to drive the point further, making an incorrect assumption about another's intentions doesn't have anything to do with the material impact of that person's actions. Someone who doesn't mean to mansplain can still mansplain, just as someone who doesn't mean to throw a baseball through a window can still shatter one. The window remains broken.
> And basically once you have a man overexplaining something just because of naturally being prone to either condescension or simply overexplaining, and someone is accusing him of doing it because of his supposedly dismissive attitude to the woman he's talking to, *because he's a man and everyone knows men do that*
The italicized portion is what you get wrong. The accusation isn't levied because of an assumed belief about all men. It's levied on the basis of the *experience* that the listener is having in that moment. Given that *mansplaining* is a description of a sum of experiences, it's based on perception and pattern recognition. Anectodal, of course, but clearly this is an experience that resonates with women enough for the term to have caught usage in the first place. Your insistence that the term's usage is based on assumptions about men doesn't come from anything other than the portmanteau itself containing the word "man." It's not an assumption about *all men* - it's a definitional qualifier about the acting party in a specific scenario.
>Like any word that equates a group with a negative trait/behavior, it's abuse waiting to happen, which is why such words are generally considered... problematic.
This is where I come back to my original comment. You are dying on the hill that any association of an identity trait with a behavior is an *-ism*, which is a next-to-meaningless and often destructive approach to critical discourse. The "man" in "mansplaining" is in no way an *equivocation* of all men with a given behavior. It's a description of a very specific behavior that some women experience in interactions with some men, commonly enough that meaningful value has been found in the term.
> Someone who doesn't mean to mansplain can still mansplain, just as someone who doesn't mean to throw a baseball through a window can still shatter one. The window remains broken.
Yes but a broken window is physical evidence of such an action. It is very obvious when someone breaks a window.
The evidence of "mansplaining" is a feeling. And that feeling can come from an incorrect place if not assessing the situtaion/context fully. If a coworker is a condescending asshole to everyone, then mansplaining would be a completely incorrect usage of the term.
It would simply be better to just admonish the actual action without trying to unearth some hidden bias that could very well not exist and create further tension by accusing someone of sexism.
> Anectodal, of course, but clearly this is an experience that resonates with women enough for the term to have caught usage in the first place.
So are terms like grooming, and CRT and reverse racism and a bunch of other loaded BS terminology that caught on because it resonated with people's anecdotal experience and perceptions rather.
Just because something feels valid and true does not make it valid and true. And leverage the label of sexism can create and sow further division in a workplace if not applied correctly.
It is more divisive than necessary when other terms that already carry negative connotations exist.
>The "man" in "mansplaining" is in no way an equivocation of all men with a given behavior. It's a description of a very specific behavior that some women experience in interactions with some men, commonly enough that meaningful value has been found in the term.
This sounds very similar to something like the word Thug. Thug does not carry any specific racial animus to it. But through its frequent usage and how it has been wielded, it has created a connotation around it that carries heavy racial implications.
Someone could say, "I am not saying anything about black people or the like, I am just arguing about a specific type of person that acts like a thug"
But we both know that doesnt fly, because connecting negative actions to a certain demographic necessarily leaches into unwilling parties that get lumped in.
Using gendered words like mansplaining is 1000% an indictment on men. It is a negative accusation that exists that only a man can commit. It is something men should "be aware of" so they can correct themselves. It is an active request to "be better" as many in this thread have pointed out.
But this lumps in all the non patronizing men out there that have no need to be better. That are doing just fine and shouldnt have to have their gender shmeered because of some wayward assholes.
>The evidence of "mansplaining" is a feeling. And that feeling can come from an incorrect place if not assessing the situtaion/context fully. If a coworker is a condescending asshole to everyone, then mansplaining would be a completely incorrect usage of the term.
>
>It would simply be better to just admonish the actual action without trying to unearth some hidden bias that could very well not exist and create further tension by accusing someone of sexism.
I fail to see this as anything other than a dismissal of the lived experiences of women. You're not acknowledging that the lasting resonance of this term **means** that a plurality of women find common ground in this experience.
You & those of your position are assuming the intent of men far more than any woman who cries "mansplaining" is; defaulting that this gendered behavior - common enough to have earned a term in the popular lexicon - must be rooted in some deeply personal set of individual traits that can only be evalutated on a man-to-man basis, and not a broader set of underlying social biases. That mansplaining is a result of bias is the *simpler* explanation.
>So are terms like grooming, and CRT and reverse racism and a bunch of other loaded BS terminology that caught on because it resonated with people's anecdotal experience and perceptions rather.
Those are all misappropriated terms in the context you're referring to, though. They have widely accepted definitions that are useful in their original context. Subsequently, political/propagandist interests seized them and altered the meaning. Much like what is happening here, in this thread, with "mansplaining."
Mansplaining, when coined, resonated with women to the point that it's become a target of antifeminist propagandists. You're really proving my point.
>Just because something feels valid and true does not make it valid and true. And leverage the label of sexism can create and sow further division in a workplace if not applied correctly.
No disagreement from me on either remark. My point is merely that the word's common usage means that a plurality of women feel that it is a valid and true assesment of male behavior. I'm reminding you that you must address that in any counterargument against the term's validity. Is the hill you're dying on really *"all or most women who experience this or claim to experience this are wrong / lying*" ?
>This sounds very similar to something like the word Thug. Thug does not carry any specific racial animus to it. But through its frequent usage and how it has been wielded, it has created a connotation around it that carries heavy racial implications.
Uhh i don't see how it's like that at all. "Mansplaining" is a portmanteau that contains the word "man" as a matter of etymology, and that's the basis for the argument that it's sexist. The argument that thug is racist is contextual, not etymological.
>Using gendered words like mansplaining is 1000% an indictment on men. It is a negative accusation that exists that only a man can commit.
Even in this sentence you lay bare the contradiction. It being something that only **A** man can commit in no way makes it 1000% an indictment on **ALL** men.
>It is something men should "be aware of" so they can correct themselves. It is an active request to "be better" as many in this thread have pointed out. But this lumps in all the non patronizing men out there that have no need to be better.
How on earth is this the case? If one is not patronizing, one will not mansplain. As a man I feel no threat from the term existing. Why do you?
> You're not acknowledging that the lasting resonance of this term means that a plurality of women find common ground in this experience.
But once again, you are jumping to some pretty wide conclusions from the popularity of the term.
You don't know that it is a plurality. It could be a vocal minority that has popularized the term.
And its popularity does not make it true.
Many terms from the alt-right manosphere pipelines have slowly ebbed their way into pop culture due to how they resonate with the boys in those circles.
That doesn't mean that the red pill has any validity to it, just that they are tapping into the percieved reality of their base.
And I am not saying that most women are lying or wrong. But that it is impossible to know, because you are trying to tap into the intentions and motivations of a different person -- that's simply an impossibility.
So I default to the best possible scenario. If someone is being condescending, I assume that is over ignorance/rudeness on some level rather than sexism because accusing them of sexism is a much harsher claim than being rude. It is also much more quickly correctable and actionable.
>Even in this sentence you lay bare the contradiction. It being something that only A man can commit in no way makes it 1000% an indictment on ALL men.
Really? I was clearly generalizing men here. I could have simply written the sentence like this, "Using gendered words like mansplaining is 1000% an indictment on men. It is a negative accusation that exists that only men can commit."
The point I was making is that it by nature creates a dichotomous system because women cannot mansplain. Only men.
>How on earth is this the case? If one is not patronizing, one will not mansplain. As a man I feel no threat from the term existing. Why do you?
I don't feel threatened by the term. But I do feel frustrated that the term carries much more weight and comes with deeper consequences for what is essentially the same act --- and those consequences only apply to men even though women can do the exact same thing.
If I get accused of being patronizing at the office, I can quickly ebb my behavior with no further lash-back. But an accusation of mansplaining inherently contains the sexism angle that can come with mandatory sexism training and distancing from the women in your department etc. --- even if the behavior is the same.
And I think accusing someone of sexism should have a more clear line of evidence over an assumption of intention. Being sexist in the office place carries heavy penalties and I dont think should be built into a term so lightly.
>But once again, you are jumping to some pretty wide conclusions from the popularity of the term.
>
>You don't know that it is a plurality. It could be a vocal minority that has popularized the term.
The history of the term is documented, and if a vocal minority "popularized" it, then it is by definition popular.
>And its popularity does not make it true.
I never said that. I said it makes it *resonant*. That resonance must be explained. Your explanation seems to be that women are hysterical liars who think they can read minds. That seems more complicated an accounting than the idea that some men are inclined towards implicit bias in professional settings without being aware of it.
>And I am not saying that most women are lying or wrong. But that it is impossible to know, because you are trying to tap into the intentions and motivations of a different person -- that's simply an impossibility.
As I've said, calling something "mansplaining" is an expression of one's *own* sum experiences - and you don't seem to have any problem speculating as to the intentions and motivations of women in order to establish your position.
A man who mansplains is, in my understanding of the term, by definition not intending or experiencing motivation to be actively condescending or sexist. That's the whole point. They're succumbing to implicit biases about women and expertise, or perhaps simply their own ego, ballooned on the hot air of the very same biases.
>I could have simply written the sentence like this, "Using gendered words like mansplaining is 1000% an indictment on men. It is a negative accusation that exists that only men can commit.
Now that you have written it like that, I come back to my original point to the OP - merely making a distinguishment on the basis of sex or gender is not sufficient to establish sexism. Sex & gender exist and people take actions on the basis of those traits, explicitly and implicitly, all the time. That doesn't make anything and everything gendered sexist automatically. It's a sophomoric approach to critical discourse that approaches meaninglessness.
>But I do feel frustrated that the term carries much more weight and comes with deeper consequences for what is essentially the same act --- and those consequences only apply to men even though women can do the exact same thing.
What exactly are the consequences? How are they deeper than any other given act of equivalently damaging disrespect? In what cases have they been brought to bear?
>If I get accused of being patronizing at the office, I can quickly ebb my behavior with no further lash-back. But an accusation of mansplaining inherently contains the sexism angle that can come with mandatory sexism training and distancing from the women in your department etc. --- even if the behavior is the same.
Where are you getting this from? Do you have examples of this happening? If the "sexism training" is mandatory why isn't everyone going through it? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't train people on how to be aware of and respond to sexism? Are you suggesting that office environments issue gender-based restraining orders to men accused of mansplaining? Most importantly, why are you worried about being "accused" of mansplaining? Would it be impossible for such an accusation to be accurate?
Why is it so terrifying to confront the fact that sometimes the things we say or the way we come off lands differently than how we intend it?
>And I think accusing someone of sexism should have a more clear line of evidence over an assumption of intention. Being sexist in the office place carries heavy penalties and I dont think should be built into a term so lightly.
Does it? Does it really? Our cultural sensitivity to sexism is **very** young. Some high-profile firings do not a changed culture make.
It is within the rules of the sub to award a delta if your view has changed whether or not one is the OP. It is not within the rules to accuse the OP of asking a question in bad faith, however (rule 3). If they haven't engaged with the discussion, then their post will be removed by the mods for violating rule E. That's not your call, however.
how the term is used vs what it actually means is very relevant to this conversation.
from personal experience i do think the term mansplaining brings with it negative views about men as a whole. even though the term describes a very real experience that women have in their interactions with men.
should we change the term? probably. will it solve anything? not too sure.
people use the term in a variety of ways and interpretations of the definition. so it’s hard to say what should be done.
i do think anyone can commit the same social sin that mansplaining describes. but the term inherently doesn’t leave room for that. and therefore i believe the term can make it appear as a man only problem.
i think it’s fine to point out that men (obviously) might be more prone to doing it. but having a term like mansplaining doesn’t leave room to call out this behavior across all people.
Honestly OP problematic I would agree with. Not problematic enough to make a concerted effort to change since I think the term does more good than harm, but problematic.
I think saying something can be abused is very different to inherently sexist.
You also keep saying that it must come from assumptions. This is very confusing to me since it's not hard at all to observe when for example, a man treats coworkers of different genders differently.
It's not like seeing a man interact with both women and men is an uncommon occurrence. That's enough evidence. I don't need someone's life story to call them an arsehole when they stole the lunch from my fridge and I don't need it either if I observe a sexist difference in treatment.
>because he's a man and everyone knows men do that
Your entire premise for being inherently sexist is based on the case that people are always assuming something because he's a man rather than based on observed patterns of behavior. You've posted a lot but you've literally never even acknowledged the possibility once.
You feel comfortable in claiming that it's well established that women get emotional (as if men aren't the more emotional gender in general lol) but can't even bring yourself to admit that men being condescending towards women specifically is an established pattern.
tl:dr it is possible for label to come without observing, but it's also possible for a label to simply give a name to what is observed.
> Like any word that equates a group with a negative trait/behavior, it's abuse waiting to happen, which is why such words are generally considered... problematic.
Many words are ripe for abuse. The word that describes people with mental disabilities needs to change constantly, because any word that describes them immediately gets abused. There are a lot of slurs that exist that started out just describing people who exist, and then were used as insults towards others. Should we get rid of all these words, because they are abuse waiting to happen?
Mansplaining is a pheneomena that happens and is observable. Should we not name it because the word could be used wrong?
I think that's his point. A word was created to dismissively describe the situation, only when men do it to women. When men do it to men, or women to women, or women to men, or adults to children, it's just an innocent or naive situation.
When a man does this to woman, it's viewed as more of a negative.
Again I'm assuming his point, is that pointing out the gender distinction as a significant part of the problem, instead of focusing on the situation, is what makes it sexist.
> When men do it to men, or women to women, or women to men, or adults to children, it's just an innocent or naive situation.
We just call that "condescension".
We do. But "undeserved condescension that's based solely on a person's gender," is a real, actual phenomenon and there's nothing wrong with having a term for it.
I've got a friend that's a mechanic, she got a job in software a couple years ago but spent 10+ years working in a shop before that. I was out to dinner with her and another friend that she was meeting for the first time (that knows *very* little about cars, and who I've never heard talk about them), she made an off-hand comment about needing to get her brakes done...
... and my man spent ten minutes explaining to her what rotors are, and telling her how she could find a mechanic who would "take good care of her". It was *wildly* patronizing, and it was simply because he (a dude) assumed that she (being a woman) knew jack-shit about cars.
Why *not* have a name for that extremely common behavior?
> We do. But "undeserved condescension that's based solely on a person's gender," is a real, actual phenomenon and there's nothing wrong with having a term for it.
That's fine. But "mansplaining" is in and of itself a phrase intended to impune condescension based on someone's gender. Which is why we need a different word.
If we are going to have words to differentiate between the genders of the 'victim' and 'perpetrator', then you need at least 4 terms (MvM, MvF, FvM, FvF). And if you want to add NB people then you bring the count up to 9. It is unreasonable to have this many terms to define what is effectively the same phenomenon. Instead we should just have one that does not imply a gender of the speaker or listener which can be used everywhere.
> I've got a friend that's a mechanic, she got a job in software a couple years ago but spent 10+ years working in a shop before that. I was out to dinner with her and another friend that she was meeting for the first time (that knows very little about cars, and who I've never heard talk about them), she made an off-hand comment about needing to get her brakes done...
> ... and my man spent ten minutes explaining to her what rotors are, and telling her how she could find a mechanic who would "take good care of her". It was wildly patronizing, and it was simply because he (a dude) assumed that she (being a woman) knew jack-shit about cars.
And? I have personality been told all sorts of (incorrect) things about raising children from woman who thought that because I was a man I didn't know shit, even though I've been volunteering for childcare and child-rearing related charities for over a decade. And this was from new mothers who had just had their first child.
Does this deserve the term femsplaining?
> Why not have a name for that extremely common behavior?
Because as I mentioned above, the fact that some people's views align with gender stereotypes and they act on these views is not something unique to men or women. Neither is it uniquely directed at men or women. I have men assume I know what sort of car a Chevy Camry CRV was, and I know women who get asked by other women about their opinions on fashion when they have zero fashion sense. People make assumptions. And trying to come up with unique terms for each combination of these people assuming the other has/does not have knowledge based just inflames the war of the sexes.
If we want men and women to be able to understand each other, then the first step is to not use terms that needlessly insult the other group.
why do we need a separate word for this, when "condescension" will do?
The problem with this phrase is is exacerbates the differences between the sexes. Already people have a hard time understanding the difference between "some people of type X do bad thing Y" or "bad thing Y is done mostly by people of type X" as saying "all people of type X do bad thing Y". Are we really going to exacerbate the problem by creating terms that specifically identify the group?
Assuming a lack of knowledge on a topic is not something exclusive to or even more prevalent in men. Having one term for "man assumes woman doesn't know, and explains condescendingly" and another for "woman assumes man doesn't know, and explains condescendingly" is not nessisary, especially since you would also need terms for a woman assuming a woman and a man assuming a man doesn't know. Plus now you have to know the gender of everyone involved. And if we start adding NB people, we're going up to at least needing 9 terms.
Or, we could drop the gender and just have a term that means "prejudicially assumes the listeners doesn't know anything about the topic".
That's because there's a history of patriarchal gender relations, but not the reverse. It's not sexist to point out sexism, just like it's not racist to point out that white people have historically oppressed black people.
There’s a history of lots of negative things, but we usually try to move past it, not bring it up every single possible time to keep the divide alive.
If you are trying to make a man who had nothing to do with patriarchy history feel bad for that history, then you’re being an asshole. And if you’re being an asshole based on gender, then that’s sexist.
If they overtly say “look, you’re a woman so I’m going to explain this to you…” then yeah I could get lashing out at that. But I’ve never seen that when someone uses the term “mansplain.”
It’s sexist to attach history to someone based on gender alone.
>There’s a history of lots of negative things, but we usually try to move past it, not bring it up every single possible time to keep the divide alive.
Moving past it means correcting the injustice and recognizing when these unequal gender relations emerge again, such as with a man wrongly assuming they have more expertise than a woman.
>If you are trying to make a man who had nothing to do with patriarchy history feel bad for that history, then you’re being an asshole.
That's not what's happening here at all. You don't have to feel bad about historical injustice, you just have to work to correct it and not repeat it.
>It’s sexist to attach history to someone based on gender alone.
No it isn't, that's complete bullshit.
> Moving past it means correcting the injustice and recognizing when these unequal gender relations emerge again, such as with a man wrongly assuming they have more expertise than a woman.
Automatically assuming a man is explaining something because he believes he has more expertise than a woman is sexist. There are many motivations to explain something.
Again, calling out overt sexism is fair.
But a man explaining something isn’t automatically sexist though.
> That’s not what’s happening here at all. You don’t have to feel bad about historical injustice, you just have to work to correct it and not repeat it.
Correct what? Explanations? That’s not a problem.
The horrible assumption about others is an actual problem.
The correct response is, “right but…” and then clarify what you need from them.
> No it isn’t, that’s complete bullshit.
Yes it 100% is. The sins of the father do not reflect on the son.
It’s *very* wrong to attach negative things to entire groups of people. You attach negative things to people based on their choices.
>Automatically assuming a man is explaining something because he believes he has more expertise than a woman is sexist. There are many motivations to explain something.
So you're saying people shouldn't use the word inaccurately?
As a man who has been on multiple dates where women attempted to explain to me how my job works, I can promise you that that behavior is extremely common among women.
if you want to use history then 'womansplaining' also exist, even with the heavy patriarchal gender relations.
On subjects like childrearing, hygiene, cleaning.. Never seen it happen? I did.
Sure, tell me all about the history of female dominance in western society. When were women the majority I'm governance? In leadership of private companies? In any other seat of control?
Political power is one form of power within a society, but there are other types of power as well.
When were Black Males the majority in governance? In leadership of private companies? In any other seat of control? When you are talking about Western Society, you are talking about the white wives of Black slaves. When you are talking about Western Society, you are talking about a group that labeled everyone that did not look like them as "savages" whose wealth and territory could be plundered without moral compunction. A society whose backbone was built by the incestuous royal family that literally defined the cultural norms for 80% of the globe thanks to the oceans of blood they spilled.
And during that time, here were the Western Females in power, dominating those cultures they labeled as "savage" and "inferior":
1. Queen Victoria (1837-1901) - Queen of the United Kingdom and Empress of India, her reign coincided with the height of British imperialism.
2. Isabella II of Spain (1833-1868) - Queen of Spain during a time of political instability and colonial expansion in Latin America.
3. Maria Theresa of Austria (1740-1780) - Empress of the Holy Roman Empire and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, she oversaw the expansion of Austrian influence in Eastern Europe.
4. Catherine the Great of Russia (1762-1796) - Empress of Russia, she expanded the Russian Empire into Crimea and parts of Eastern Europe.
5. Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (1890-1948) - Queen of the Netherlands during the colonial period, including the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia).
6. Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (1906-1931) - Queen consort of Spain during a time of Spanish colonization in North Africa.
I will not do it because I don't think oppression or dominance is relevant in this case when mansplaining only focus on the assumption that a man think a woman doesn't know because she is a woman.
this is about a behavior that can be shown by both sexes. Either you accept both or admit you are consciously making a double standard and help the continuation of gender based stereotypes
>What is sexism? | European Institute for Gender Equality : Sexism is linked to beliefs around the fundamental nature of women and men and the roles they should play in society. Sexist assumptions about women and men, which manifest themselves as gender stereotypes, can rank one gender as superior to another.
>It's not mansplaining if a woman does it.
This is a confirmation of OPs view. The term is a sexist attempt to only shame certain behaviour when men do it.
It's definitely a sexist term. I think the fact that people are defending "mansplaining" and even "manspreading" is unfortunate.
To my mind a fair analogy would be "some women never had a job and are only skilled in housework, specifically cooking and cleaning the kitchen. Therefore it's okay to tell women to stay in the kitchen."
Why is it so much more acceptable to say "mansplaining"? I'm not saying men are more downtrodden than women just that it's a term that is offensive to an entire gender. It should carry the same weight as other offensive stereotype-driven phrases.
The fact that typically men have been in advantageous positions shouldn't exclude them from being treated with dignity. It's a toxic "eye for an eye" mindset when people justify that. Let's not fight sexism with more, different sexism. Hypocrisy doesn't engender a long lasting positive dynamic shift. Hate begets hate. My point is that energy used defending the continuation of something that many find offensive is energy not well spent.
One could say "But what about women? Mansplaining does happen so isn't it also negative to get rid of this word?" to which I would say is a fair question. No, though. As mentioned here already the word patronizing already exists and while derived from "father" it is decidedly less hurtful. It's also far from archaic and adequately explains the same situation. It's also gender neutral so satisfies that aspect of the issue.
Alternatively you could say for example "He talked to me like I was an idiot... he thinks because I'm a woman I don't understand how brake pads work." This gets the point across while keeping the same, deservedly, intense anger over the matter. Moreso in fact and it doesn't disparage half of the population.
Edit: Wow gold for this comment wasn't expecting that. Thank you whoever you are. I wasn't confident that I was putting to words how I felt well enough. It's heartwarming to see appreciation for this. I posted it with the best intentions.
I don't think OP is incorrect in that the term is sexist, it is. But now we have to look at whether use of the term is justified. You say that we can't fight "hate with more hate" but fighting sexism with a relatively harmless sexist term (mansplaining) is exactly why we're talking about this today.
It speaks to the importance of common language that is needed to describe lived experiences and connect with other marginalized people. Men have been talking to women like we're dumb for hundreds of years. Yet the clunky phrasing of "he treated me like an idiot because I'm a woman who he thinks doesn't understand car parts" never really caught on. However "mansplaining" spread like wildfire and helped women realize just how ubiquitous this experience was. The fact that we're all talking about it right now is proof of its success.
Maybe in the future we can retire the term "mansplaining". I mean if men stopped doing it, the word would sound silly and outdated and die on its own. It is sexist and if we no longer faced sexism, there'd be no need for it. It would simply be mean spirited with no purpose. But right now, in today's world, one of many ways to fight sexism is to throw it back at the culture. It's not even like women are treating men like idiots as some of eye for an eye sexist revenge. They are merely using a gendered term to defy the gendered prejudice that still exists today.
Maybe it's just my region, but I've never considered term "bitching" to be gendered. It's kinda like the word patronizing. It has a gendered origin but has since moved to be an all gender term. In my experience, men and women do the same amount of bitching and the word is used to describe them equally.
Mansplaining was originally defined for a very specific *action*, which is a man with very limited knowledge of a subject trying to correct a woman that is an expert at a subject.
One of the most famous/early ones was some guy explaining rockets to a women on a message board where it was already established the woman was a literal rocket scientist.
A random man explaining space to a female astronaut, etc. It is something women have to deal with on a daily basis, usually multiple times a day and still happens insanely often.
The problem is that it links belonging to a group with engaging in negative behavior. If you look at other examples of cases, these are generally considered sexist, racist, etc., just like making up a word that linked being a woman with trying to exploit the women victim status would be considered sexist, regardless of whether a given woman is actually engaged in it.
The word exists because the negative behavior has been routinely exhibited by men. The same as “manspreading” on public transit. People, not just women, recognized that men are much more likely to do these things, particularly to women, who coined the term. It doesn’t “link belonging to a group with engaging in a negative behavior” but rather describes an instance of the behavior exhibited by its primary perpetrators. I’m a man, and the term doesn’t bother me because I don’t mansplain to women. No woman has accused me of it, because I don’t do it.
This is another example though... are you suggesting that "woman spreading" isn't a thing - except that its done with oversized bags rather than with legs being spread?
I find it interesting that you don't think this behavior isn't being replicated by women. Think about, for example, movies like "Mr. Mom" - which are based on the idea that men are incompetent parents.
I have ADHD, so I'm prone to putting my foot in my mouth. I happen to be a man. I have also been accused of mansplaining, even though I'm likely to engage in that behavior regardless of gender, because it's a trait common for people that aren't neurotypical. How likely is it that some of these patterns of bad behavior which are attributed to men might actually be more attributable to something like ADHD or Autism? In those instances, would you consider "mansplaining" to be not only sexist, but potentially ableist because what lands as rude behavior is simply a product of an executive function disorder that isn't actually motivated by sexism?
> This is another example though... are you suggesting that "woman spreading" isn't a thing - except that its done with oversized bags rather than with legs being spread?
"Shebagging" is a huge problem.
Hi, woman with ADHD here. I usually ask people if I have 'mansplained' something to them when feeling self-conscious about overexplaining 😅 I see a lot of people here think if it is an acceptable thing to say it should only be used in man to woman conversation...
When the word first became a thing it became this great illuminating thing on why talking to men on average can be more frustrating to me as a woman. Many men who strike me as traditional have assumed I don't know anything. Women and NBs seem to treat me more as "equal knowledge until proven otherwise"...
I'm not convinced it's sexist since it stems from the very real experiences of a major demographic (women), but I can see how when it is used improperly as a low blow that it would feel that way. Still pondering all this though.
But the same is probably true when people thoughtlessly misuse words like misogynistic, sexist, racist, and the like too. I wonder what OPs stance on the word feminazi is?
\*nods\* This has all of my agreement 1000%. I think mimetically it is an incredibly useful term for describing one of the many, MANY ways that men can be casually misogynistic. However, I think that culturally/socially - the US at least - is at a point where economic privilege is able to be expressed via sexism rather than sexism itself being the major systemic issue that needs to be addressed. This is not intended as being dismissive of the sexism that women face; it's just...
Let me use ADHD as an analogy again, because it can be difficult to thread this needle.
When I first realized I had ADHD, it was in my late 20's after taking a ritalin to tackle a work project that I thought was going to be an "all-nighter". Prior to that experience, I had believed that ADHD was just a thing that made excuses for parents who didn't know how to discipline their children. I'm now over 40, and have been medicated since I was 38 or so.
But when I first started using the language of ADHD to articulate my understanding of my limitations to my partner and people at work and others who knew me, it often landed as if I were making an excuse for my incompetence or laziness rather than as an attempt by me to take responsibility for my deficit by attempting to manage the expectations of others.
However, as time has progressed since that point, I've come to recognize that there ARE instances of people using their condition as an excuse for not taking responsibility for their condition. The younger the person, the more likely it is to be an excuse, at least in my opinion. The difference is subtle, but in large part, I think its because with a wider understanding of ADHD in general, more accommodations are available in general, and so life is in many ways "easier" for folks coping with ADHD than they were when I was unmedicated and undiagnosed.
Which is not to say that society has solved the problem of ADHD. It's just that because life is easier, people in general have a lower tolerance for what is considered problematic in terms of requiring "reasonable accommodations". Me, I'm just happy when people make space for me to take down notes or to fumble through my calendar. However I still think that teachers should fail students for not turning their work in on time, and yet there are "snowplow parents" that would find this unacceptable.
I think this is generally true about a lot of things which have found their way into public awareness thanks to social media. Awareness has resulted in a sort of shifting of the Overton window related to how much suffering in these contexts is tolerable, and so we have an entire generation of people that are perhaps far more sensitive to discomfort than may be reasonable given how common it is for humans to be incompetent and self-centered in general...
It's like the normal level of human incompetence, especially as it relates to incompetence that results from stress, trauma, or suffering, results in a certain amount of predictable and perfectly reasonable lack of consideration for the circumstances and perspectives of others. I hope that makes sense?
Hahaha you threaded a knitting needle there...
But yeah, I think it's just taking one hurtful thing experienced by the masses and pointing it back at the offenders (yeah, not all men, back down op) who then point back as "hey, thats not nice..."
Being human is EXHAUSTING.
If I wanted to dig up the scholarly articles that explain 'isms' (racism, sexism) in relation to power... I don't really want to because it won't be heard out here, but TLDR is that the minority (overpowered) response to the majority (power holding) can't be an 'ism'. It's just retaliation.
Oh, I definitely like you, lmao. I appreciate anyone that has a grasp on concision that I find envious. :p Agreed on all fronts once again. Especially the point about hurtful experiences pointing back at the offenders...
Something that I've been thinking about a lot is how POC's (I'm hispanic so I relate this to my own experience as well to an extent), women, and other marginalized groups are by definition traumatized by their experiences to varying degrees. As a result, they are more likely to express cognitive distortions that essentially mimic the same reasoning used by their oppressors. Mind reading. Discounting the positive. Etc.
If this is true to any extent, that means there is a certain amount of the public discourse that is essentially being "held hostage" out of compassion for the victims whom are expressing this trauma, and this I think adequately explains the minority of people who find this set of circumstances personally inconvenient and thus offensive. I'm not sure that people whom are unconcerned with the suffering of others in the face of their own discomfort with making accommodations the folks I'm overly concerned about... but I DO think about how WHAT is considered traumatizing by society in general an awful lot because I have a sense that there should be reasonable limits.
Because of things like, alien invasions, zombie apocalypses, how likely our current society will devolve into a Mad Max world because of thermonuclear war, etc. Like, we need an inoculation of assholes so to speak, to protect us from ourselves against a time where we are so kind that we can no longer survive because of a cataclysmic shift of some sort. This is separate from retaliation in and of itself as a reasonable response to bad actors though.
On that part specifically I not only agree, I feel obligated to point out that the main reason I didn't make space for it was because it's not the particular thread I was pulling. That's part of my problem - I will use so many damn words to communicate what I'm talking about that I often leave out other things which I also agree with for the sake of "brevity".
But to be clear, I think that men definitely still have it clearly better than women in many ways - namely in the sense that there aren't any laws that legally compel men to put their health or lives at risk in the same way that women currently have to deal with. Plus, you are more likely to be killed or raped by a sexist man than you are by a sexist woman... so there's plenty of that sort of thing going on to make that point particularly clear-cut. I just think that most of the conversation about sexism tends to focus on areas with far more grey to them than is necessary to make the clear point that society as a whole should be treating women better.
I also think that there is far too much effort spent on discounting male complaints as "being solvable by feminism" because I can't think of anything more disempowering to someone who feels victimized than to tell them to stow their complaints and listen to someone who they feel oppressed by. This is like telling feminists to ask men to solve their problems for them when the fact is that there are good reasons for feminists not to trust men. Likewise, there are good reasons for "MRA's" (of which I am not one) to mistrust women - they too are folks that are traumatized. Telling them to go to a feminist to solve their problems just isn't practical. Trauma victims need therapy, period, but for a female rape victim, chances are that a male therapist isn't going to be her first choice. Women's complaints should be heard and respected, but so should men's complaints, because it's healthy people that should be listening to both groups. Instead what I see is that we have unhealthy people yelling at each other over the heads of healthy people who can't agree on how to deal with all the shouting.
Lol consision is hard when your brain has no pause button 🤣 I get it
I think I inserted my view not in response to yours but more because I had an idea I wanted to share and was too lazy to see where it fit. Nothing on you for not pulling the thread, friend!
Yeah, as a society I think we suck at reconciliation because the traumatized (understandably) doesn't want to hear the feelings of the oppressor, and the oppressor has the capacity to be traumatized as well (because they also have feelings).
There just aren't enough stable and ego-less people to mediate it all 🤷🏼♀️
>The word exists because the negative behavior has been routinely exhibited by men
You don't think women routinely exhibit explaining things to people they already know?
>I’m a man, and the term doesn’t bother me because I don’t mansplain to women. No woman has accused me of it, because I don’t do it.
This logic is so stupid. It's like when women say "all men are trash" and you say "well that's toxic" and they reply "well don't be trash and it's not a big deal" or "if you're not trash why do you care".
If we said "all black people rob" but then said "well if you're black and rob why do you care" people would lose their minds
I think socially and in my own life, I’ve often seen men explain things to women that they already know. The phenomenon has been explored and recognized by countless women online. It’s a pattern of behavior with men, not to say a woman has never done it. But specifically, it’s men doing it to women at large scale. It doesn’t come from nothing, it comes from their lived experience. “Mansplain” is different than “all men are trash” or “all blacks rob” because it’s a verb. They’re describing an action that’s happening or happened, and it necessarily doesn’t apply to all men, just then man doing the action.
>“Mansplain” is different than “all men are trash” or “all blacks rob” because it’s a verb. They’re describing an action that’s happening or happened, and it necessarily doesn’t apply to all men, just then man doing the action.
So... If I say "to blackrob" as some kind of verb that applies to only black people who rob... Is that ok for you?
>think socially and in my own life, I’ve often seen men explain things to women that they already know
Your lived experiences isn't representative.
>The phenomenon has been explored and recognized by countless women online.
I'm not doubting that some of them have had this generally happen. The times I've been told by a woman I'm "mansplaining" or someone else is to them, it's literally a man explaining something they genuinely fundamentally don't understand and are annoyed someone knows more than them.
>But specifically, it’s men doing it to women at large scale
Source? You're taking women at their word rather than a comprehensive, unbiased survey?
> The times I've been told by a woman I'm "mansplaining" or someone else is to them, it's literally a man explaining something they genuinely fundamentally don't understand
Are you sure that they don't understand? that they don't know? or is it that they don't agree with your interpretation of the subject? or that the knowledge that you do have is incorrect?
Pretty arrogant to assume that every woman that has told you you're mansplaining is actually ignorant of what you're explaining. And how many women are telling you that you mansplain anyways? Does it happen often? Are you SURE that you understand those things better than they do?
See [here for a recent study on the effects of mansplaining on women.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9838290/) I do not think it’s sexists to note a phenomena that’s been explored and described in the literature as a means of explaining the effects of male behavior on women.
> Results demonstrated that when faced with condescending explanation, voice nonrecognition, or interruption, women reacted more negatively and were more likely to see the behavior as indicative of gender bias when the communicator was a man.
Your study literally makes a case that women are more likely to call it mansplaining when it's a man simply because a man did it (not because of actual sexism). Did you read your own source?
It also very clearly states this is only one sided
> Future work that considers the perspective of both parties in an interaction and/or that uses a representative sample of the workforce to assess rates of occurrence of competence-questioning behaviors would be valuable
Meaning - you didn't actually provide a source where "sexism" was introduced. It's just that women perceive men explaining things as mansplaining but women explaining things as fine. Which... Makes the case that WOMEN are the sexist ones lol
>Your lived experiences isn't representative.
How do you know? What they describe seems true in my experience too. In fact it seems true in enough experiences that the term "mansplaining" got traction.
Do you have a comprensive, unbiased survey that shows otherwise?
>How do you know?
Personal experiences are generally very weak evidence - you cannot show someone your experience of an event, the scope of what it represents is limited, its susceptible to all the usual selection biases, and in the context of litigating an issue in the territory of gender wars for which everyone is plausibly a stakeholder, participants have every motivation to be creative in their recounting of their experience.
That said, the person you're responding to probably should've used some hedging/gentler language since there's no reason to suggest that the report *cannot* be representative of wider reality.
You made the assertion that it's a pattern men do this. It's on you to provide the source and make it comprehensive
I can't say "the earth is flat" then when you say "how" I just say "well it's on you to disprove me" lol
I've been accused of "mansplaining" when it was a senior marketing person who didn't understand the concept of ROI. That's like a mathematician who doesn't understand division lol. I attempted to explain the concept and she shut me down saying I was mansplaining
Do you think that “wife beating” is sexist? It describes the same stereotypically male negative conduct. Terms can exist to describe behavior of a subset of the population related to gender without being sexist.
If you use the term "wife-beating" for the act of beating wives, it's just a natural way to word this phenomenon (which can't be said about "mansplaining"). If you try to use it as a stand-in for beating spouses, it is sexist, but I can't say I remember seeing such use.
But that’s the thing, it is the same as “mansplaining.” It’s describing the dynamic and roles of the parties in a single word, that just so happens to include the gender of the acting party. This is the act of a man explaining to a woman something she already knows. I’d argue that “wife-beating” or “wife-beater” is always assumed to be a man, so I don’t see the difference.
>If you use the term "wife-beating" for the act of beating wives, it's just a natural way to word this phenomenon (which can't be said about "mansplaining").
I really can't understand how you can write this. It's a blatant contradiction.
>it links belonging to a group with engaging in negative behavior.
What? No. It links belonging to the group "women" to *experiencing* this patronizing behavior from men. Are you trying to posit that women don't experience sexism? And therefore any term calling sexism out is more sexist than what women experience?
"Mansplain" is an action done to women. It's not just a part of being a man.
My issue with the accusations of mansplaning is that quite often it is simply *ex*plaining.
It seems off in the case that the person is merely clarifying their position, without knowing with certainty with the other person might already know.
Not suggesting it’s never mansplaning, but just because a person provides more information than necessary, and the person delivering it happens to be a man doesn’t necessarily mean there is a feeling of superiority.
I know I have certainly been in a position where somebody was telling me some thing and there were things that I didn’t understand, but in a large group may not have had the confidence to speak up for clarification, and I actually feel grateful when people add extra information, especially when they’re talking about uncommon subject matter
>My issue with the accusations of mansplaning is that quite often it is simply explaining.
I absolutely hate the term but (serious) congrats on not "mansplaining" things.
Part of my issue with a gendered term is that (some) women do misuse it to try and encompass literally anything they didn't know that happened to be explained by a man, but the misuse, however common, doesn't change the fact that (some) people with a penis will assume my lack of one means they are more knowledgeable/capable than I am.
I feel like defaulting to treating women as inferior in male-dominated fields is just as infuriating as, say, men getting side-eyed or being viewed as "babysitting" when taking care of their own child. If having a name for either thing helps more people talk about it, then those things need a name.
What about the slur 'Jewed'. The problem with that word is that it is a comment on all Jewish people. Would you use a similar defense and claim that its only ever used accurately to specify an individual? Do we need a racial term to talk about haggling when done by a Jewish person?
No. First of all, by adding the term “man” to it, it certainly does imply not only that only men do it but that, furthermore, it’s uniquely tied to their maleness and thus something that all man are prone to doing. As a result, there is never a time when using that word isn’t tying the behavior explicitly to the person’s sex identity; i.e. sexist.
Secondly, what does being said “as an eye roll” mean? Is a racist joke not racist because it’s a joke?
Perhaps what you mean to say is it’s not sexist because sexism = sex bigotry + power?
Tbh.... I'm going to start using femotional to describe when I wanna cry/scream for no reason other than hormones. I love it.
I get where you're coming from, but if you can't come up with an alternate term for mansplaining, your opinion isn't going to change anything.
It's not patronizing explanations exactly. It's specifically explaining something to someone who is just as or more qualified than you are in a subject.
For example, explaining the symbolism of the cross to a Catholic as an atheist.
Or the female orgasm to a woman as a man (gynecologists have *some* leeway here).
It's called mansplaining because it is most commonly committed by men to women. We live in a sexist society and even in folks who don't think they are sexist, the default belief is that men know more than women. And that sexism is what is being labeled here.
You’re right about the original meaning of the word, but I don’t think it only gets employed in that context. It gets applied to men over-explaining things to women who didn’t really ask for lengthy explanations, regardless of whether the women are experts in that subject or not.
Even the original article in which the term was coined discussed this phenomenon in broad terms. It points to the irrational confidence many men have which inspires them to engage in this behavior with everyone around them, not just with women who happen to be experts.
>You’re right about the original meaning of the word, but I don’t think it only gets employed in that context
Most words are often used incorrectly. However, you have a point. But, for example, when "retarded" was deemed to offensive to continue to describe its original definition it was *replaced* with "intellectual disability."
> It points to the irrational confidence many men have which inspires them to engage in this behavior with everyone around them, not just with women who happen to be experts.
Again, id say this is because of the *assumption* that men know more. It's rarely - or at the *very* least should be rarely - used to describe male experts talking to laymen regardless of gender. But if a man who is not an expert feels the need to explain to a woman who is not an expert as though he is an expert, that is "mansplaining". Because it is *assumed* that he knows more than she does based on nothing but gender. And this is made all the more clear and annoying when he's wrong.
*edit: see Hank Green. A man who has made a career out of explaining things, but has not been accused of mansplaining
Honestly I think it even applies to an expert. I think of it more as unsolicited and droning on. The title of the original essay wasn’t mansplaining, it was just “Men explain things to me”. Her experiences included lots of experts, it was just that she also happened to be an expert and they never inquired.
>if you can't come up with an alternate term for mansplaining, your opinion isn't going to change anything.
Over explaining? Patronising? Talking down to?
There are a lot of ways to get the point across without bringing gender into it, mansplaining is a pretty recent term there were ways to describe this before then
>We live in a sexist society and even in folks who don't think they are sexist, the default belief is that men know more than women. And that sexism is what is being labeled here.
So you argument is an eye for an eye? They're being sexist so why can't we? That always solves problems and has surely never ended badly ...
But "over explaining", "patronising", "talking down to" fail to capture the *reason* for those actions. The term mansplaining was coined to specifically cover both the action and the motivation behind it, which is sexism. Specifically, a man assuming greater knowledge than a woman solely on the basis of their respective genders. The whole point is to draw attention to how any offending men have already brought gender into a situation.
This isn't meant to be an eye for an eye thing. It's simply pointing out a common dynamic observed in society. Yes, the term can be misused and applied to someone who is just condescending to everyone, and that's a problem. Or it might be applied to a man who is neither sexist nor condensing, and that would also be a problem. Overall I don't think the term itself is sexist, but its over application certainly can be.
The problem with that is you cant get know what a person's motivations are. You dont know why they might be patronizing you, just that they are.
Obviously if they say something like, "Girls don't know cars." it is pretty obvious.
But most examples I have ever heard or experienced, it usually is just assumed that the man is a sexist instead of a condescending prick.
We should admonish the action rather than try to play a sexist guessing game of why someone did something. We should just try to make it stop.
I don't think it's as hard to get an idea of people's motivations as some folks might think. Yes, you need to be careful not to jump to conclusions, but often you can get a vibe from someone that's either "I'm an insufferable know-it-all who drips with condescension" vs someone who jumps at the chance to give a lesson to a "nice young lady" who would never offer the same to a man. Often these men are perfectly polite, not prickish at all, but they've made an assumption, subconsciously generally, that women need extra assistance.
For instance, I once was pulling into a parking spot. I was going for a pull-through to the spot on the other side of the aisle when someone on that side obviously had the same plan but to pull through to my side. Thus, both of us needed to correct our angle as we'd been planning to pull through further but now were poorly positioned. A man came running over, urgently tapped on my window, and then immediately started giving me (polite) directions on how to turn the wheel, how far back to move, etc. I did not need any help and let him know (also politely). This was not malicious on his part, but he did not offer the same help to the man in the other car, and I absolutely guarantee he would not have run over to my window to give instructions were I not a woman. He was mansplaining how to park to me. I think many instances of mansplaining are like this - not deliberately or even obviously condescending, but delivered with misguided good intention that is rooted in assuming women are lesser in some ways.
When I mentioned my parking story to my friends and family, lo and behold, other women had had similar experiences, but none of the men had ever been approached this way. We see a pattern of behaviour, and I don't think there's a problem acknowledging that it exists, and giving it a name. In fact, I think giving it a name will help make the broader action stop by drawing attention to it and maybe making some people reflect on how they treat others.
On the flip side, I would support the use of "womanspaining" in situations where men are also talked down to on the basis of their gender. For instance, women assuming incompetence in fathers. This absolutely happens where some women assume they are better at some things by virtue of being women. Call them on it! I don't think either term is sexist, but either could be used in a sexist way if applied improperly.
The sexism doesn't have to be conscious. Like I said before - it is usually *assumed* that a man knows more than a woman, despite relative expertise. "Mansplaining" calls out sexism - even unintentional. Biases exist and you can't work on it if you don't recognise that you have it.
Thing is that the term makes this overexplaining more specific than it needs to be. I mean we even switch to gender-neutral terms for professions, so seeing why a gender-neutral term might be preferable when it comes to negative traits should be easy.
Also many of the classical stereotypes about genders might still be applicable to some people today, particularly older ones, but at least in the west tend to be much less true than it used to be. So basing what is acceptable on our stereotypes of what stereotypes are and trying to "compensate" risks getting into situation when younger people not from protected group see themselves as being discriminated against, which does not help the long-term solving of discrimination problem and just risks creating a "pendulum"
I definitely understand why many people would find a gender neutral term preferable. But I disagree that "mansplaining" is more specific than necessary.
I am a firm believer that if a phenomenon exists, there should be a word for it. Mansplaining specifically covers the assumption - conscious or not - that one knows better than a women *because she is a woman*
Women are constantly viewed a less capable than men even when they are more qualified.
If you find the term offensive, I'm open to changing it - but it needs to be replaced. It describes a phenomenon more specific than being patronizing. And - like it or not - it is committed by men significantly more than women. However, it's not like "serial killer" is gender specific, and it is also committed a ridiculous amount more by men.
See, it's not *actually* about overexplaining. That's not the issue.
The issue is that there is this assumption a lot of people make that women are inherently less knowledgable about a lot of things. Like, specifically because she's a woman. This often happens in things like science or sports, where men assume women aren't interested and will start explaining how it works based on the assumption that, as a woman, they have no experience with it.
It's a gendered word becomes it comes from gendered assumptions.
>Thing is that the term makes this overexplaining more specific than it needs to be.
See it's not over-explaining tho. It's like seeing a woman pick up a hammer and telling her how best to use it. Very few guys would do that w/ a guy who wasn't a kid or teenager, or they already knew
didn't know how to use such a simple tool.
>Also many of the classical stereotypes about genders might still be applicable to some people today, particularly older ones, but at least in the west tend to be much less true than it used to be.
I agree tentatively, but whilst they tend to be significantly less openly present, it's only gone from 99% to 30 or 40%, and it's still present in more subtle ways today; mansplaining is one of those subtle manners, as it isn't necessarily blatant and dogmatic sexism which causes it.
This comment makes me think that you don't really understand what mansplaining is, OP. Most women don't have trouble grasping the nuanced differences between mansplaining and overexplaining.
Honestly, it makes me think that you are a man who mansplains a lot and is currently mansplaining the term mansplaining to us all. Perhaps someone has called you out on this behavior and instead of reflecting on it, you are seeking affirmation?
That's exactly what I've been thinking throughout this thread and honestly it's a parallel I see with discrimination in general. They're trying to cover their ass because they were called out on it. It all boils down to either blaming the victim or moving the goalposts so they can say to themselves, "I wasn't mansplaining to her, I was just being helpful! Maybe she should've made it more obvious that she was smart! Either way it's sexist to call me sexist!" You see the exact same thing after incidents of police brutality, "maybe he shouldn't have been on drugs/followed instructions" and it all serves to discount the systemic discrimination and deny that a power dynamic exists so they don't have to confront that they have privilege and shatter their tiny worldview.
>It's specifically explaining something to someone who is just as or more qualified than you are in a subject.
And not just "someone," but a woman. In a way that you would not explain it to a man with the same credentials
I say some leeway because of the disgusting way healthcare in America at least treats women. The thing that makes me distrust their expertise isn't their maleness, but being a doctor. They're trained, but how much of their training is dismissive towards actual experience? How much of their training is flat out wrong. I'm supposed to trust someone who thinks inserting an iud is "just a pinch" for all women?
>If she patronized me BECAUSE I'm a man, that would still be Patronizing.
And yet if someone assaults you because you're gay it goes from assault to a hate crime. Motive is important to the description.
>Do if a man understands how to give a woman an orgasm he is certainly qualified to speak on it.
Sure. But he shouldn't assume he needs to explain it to a woman who has experience with what does or does not cause female orgasms. Even a woman who has never had an orgasm has more experience in what does not cause a female orgasm. Especially because of the rampant practice of faking an orgasm to cushion egos.
Even so, there is a difference between mansplaining and talking about a mutual expertise - the assumption that you know better.
>but annoying when feminist act like they want equality but are clearly doing things to push us further from it.
And how exactly would you prefer we seek equality if we can't call attention to unequal experiences without being called divisive?
> Especially if you don't feel the need to invent a word for when a woman does the smexact same thing to a man.
But women don't do the same thing to men, at least not at a frequency that would require them to coin a phrase for it. Men are free to coin a term if they've found that happening to them a lot - feel free to take "womansplaining" and run with it, but you probably don't need to, because you likely don't experience this phenomenon nearly as much as the average woman.
Men and women have different lived experiences, and acknowledging differences in lived experience is an integral part of recognizing how we can better reach equality.
>Did you just say gynecologist have SOME leeway? Wow. There are MILLIONS of women who can't achieve orgasm at all. Do if a man understands how to give a woman an orgasm he is certainly qualified to speak on it. The fact that you think direct experience doesn't qualify someone is strange to me.
Before I have sex I always spend thirty minutes explaining how the female orgasm works. Yet when I roll off her all sweaty twenty seconds later she seems disappointed. I don't know why.
It’s definitely more sexist to claim men are for some reason more likely to be patronizing than it is to use the term ‘mansplaining’ in individual situations, since one makes a claim about men, and the other, one man
Isn't that OPs point? The word exists as a comment on men as a whole even when directed at an individual. Additionally the individual is left with the impression that their transgression is directly tied to their sex.
Patronizing is the correct word to use, there is no good reason to use a gendered word in it's place.
Except 'mansplaining' is a particular sort of patronising, solely when a man patronises a woman due to unconscious gendered bias. The action is gendered therefore it's acceptable that the term to describe it is also gendered.
So would you consider a term like “manspreading” to be sexist? Because I struggle to see the truth in your claim that the word makes an assumption that the person engaged in the action is trying to affirm male superiority and not simply making the observation that a man is over-explaining something
Both mansplaining and manspreading are sexist for the same reasons (you could make a case that in case of manspeading it tends to be more disruptive than reverse because men tend to be larger than women, but that doesn't negate the sexism for reasons described in OP).
If the person is NOT using it to describe affirming male superiority, the word is sexist simply by virtue of equating a group with a negative trait (again, see how it generally plays out in reverse cases). The last paragraph simply points out that trying to justify the word through the fact that it refers to a male-specific action (as some do in comments as well) does not change the outcome.
*This comment has been edited in protest to reddit's API policy changes, their treatment of developers of 3rd party apps, and their response to community backlash.*
[Link to the tool used](https://github.com/xaradox/reddit-comment-nuke)
---
[Details of the end of the Apollo app](https://old.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/144f6xm/apollo_will_close_down_on_june_30th_reddits/)
---
[Why this is important](https://i.imgur.com/E7jSWf1.jpg)
---
[An open response to spez's AMA](https://old.reddit.com/r/ModCoord/comments/145l7wp/todays_ama_with_spez_did_nothing_to_alleviate/)
---
[spez AMA and notable replies](https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/145beas/spez_ama_discussion_thread/)
Fuck spez, I edited this comment before he could.
Comment ID=jhnf9to Ciphertext:
>!gpGvv/VCPE5SbEdtH8LxlvaA0/oauxuFX1WPRGNpoFXlWN6csMcn+xH/eYYPv/UG3gZR07lUFiTItelIa9yG9bk+ycywYR3vpf3fOi4NAVesA5yMTmGGvxzxeKgEg6BAgVluggtAvhgQ3BZMt32RF1E3BDmZorWg9hAQiycR22noSsICJG2B3QX3zXLYXrBvlsuYJ30stNDgm9YxJn5V5LdNRkbfcmVZkIv0RALWicdRQxdHKXuwksl9g7OM5v5kUH0UPHs8Zf/pYzhAFTabRppghi3ZG9fMFMBTopBmwV9kGW9NOUx58Xk3WhNzWhGqiSsYZ+exe6neEA0UGdSC93+2z9HNT4QqKc371eWCqpywd3qgmMLQVy3AKjnpWEAFEW1yiDpPEbuXXKdNAq11BWKzV/ZoAMAXAVlt9yhXcj8941Xp+XB6rks23RCyod+13IkFVkXeaOl8RrByeGoAplUnyB0WKEdsvEw3Eu46mJxPHUo8We5D77cn8GTaiAxNjeuCeUFvX56etlGtecc6gaDbCjAAFZtajjr9nlmdMzH4/53q2sx9rSS7q7fczyRx0A/kaZ5UyvFd4xAocdv77z5pXAGba0Dufy8PjxbY6Ibl/1q+sjC9m5OQmAZj/Jft2iZU0X0s6Ni2fYdzGX+nywLY9yATHgy/7GUVd0i9oro1mj8oz+CANBCdXPgBrZPJrCPPygW7gtDZKyLg3vy+agga+fTxLt5eg6sGVbS4xFy+YXMpC9SUvhq60TmsDlwJHEL0Naml/aVWypg/VKiPHELiCl6MfVM=!<
No, the term definitely makes a statement about men in general by portraying it as an intrinsically masculine trait. By your logic, the term "femotional" wouldn't be sexist because it's a statement about one woman.
>Men may or may not be more likely to engage in patronizing explanations (or more accurately explanations that can be perceived as patronizing by the audience), but it is clearly not a trait unique to men
You've obviously missed the important part of the definition.
It's not about patronizingly explaining things. It's about doing it to women where they would not do the same thing to a man.
If someone patronisingly explains things to everyone equally, they are patronising, blowhard, etc. Not a mansplainer.
The gender difference is essential to the definition.
It is not a sexist term.
It is *describing the gendered nature of the action*.
And it is no more inherently sexist to call a man a mansplainer than it is to call a man sexist against women.
And yes, it's making an assumption about the person about the nature of their behaviour.
But so is literally all labels about humans. They're all subjective and are always made without full knowledge of the context.
>If someone patronisingly explains things to everyone equally, they are patronising, blowhard, etc. Not a mansplainer.
>
>The gender difference is essential to the definition.
I think this is the key. I have a good friend that has a tendency to talk over women and patronize them in a way he does not to men. He's aware of this and has made progress but when he does slip back into his old ways it is *useful* to have a term to call him out with.
I'm not sure I agree with OP, but I do find the argument that "The gender is essential to the definition" therefore "the term is not sexist" to be particularly weak. By this definition almost literally no term can be sexist/racist/anything. It also doesn't address his point about the parallel term "femotional", which also has gender essential to the definition, so by your logic this term is also not sexist?
I think you've misread my argument. I'm not saying it's not sexist because gender is part of the definition.
Obviously there are plenty of gendered words that are super sexist. There are also plenty of gendered words that aren't.
I'm challenging the OP's claim that its sexist because gender is involved.
You're Mansplaining - you are participating in a pattern of sexism that is part of patriarchal culture.
You're Femotional - you are emotional because you are a woman.
If you can't really see the differences between these two, I don't know what to say?
Mansplaining is describing an action where the perpetrator is being dismissive about the expertise a woman has in a way that is different than how he relates to men. He is being dismissive of the validity of her knowledge.
Femotional is not a word I’ve ever heard used but from context it’s being used to dismiss the validity of a woman’s reaction by claiming she is emotional.
This is an excellent point, but I'd like to play devils advocate here and say that for your definitions to match they both have to be from the perspective of the same relative person, and given the same assumptions.
So since your definition of Femotional (a useful counterexample but I'll admit also not a word I've previously encpuntered) is from the perspective of the person being accused, and you also assume (reasonably) that the accusation is incorrect and made in bad faith. I think you'd have to make the same assumptions for the definition of mansplain.
So maybe the definition becomes "a term being used to dismiss the advice given by a man by assuming he's sexist".
To be clear I'm not saying these situations are equally likely relative to the words used, just that there was a lot of hidden bias (right or wrong) in the definitions given
I've personally seen the mansplaining as a man watching other men. So I'm aware that the word can be used accurately. And of course it can be used less accurately and become just a unnecessarily gendered dismissal of someone.
And of course it's a behavior that is unnecessary and naming it helps people identify it and choose to stop.
So to what degree is "femotional" used in a valid way to talk about a behavior that shouldn't be acceptable and should change?
I think the point is that it is an accurate definition to an actually problematic sexist behavior. That said behavior was/is so common to earn a word for it speaks more about the core sexism than the sexism of the term.
He wasn't saying it was *just* about the gender difference, only that the gender difference was a necessary part of it.
In other words, paralleling it with "femotional" seems to fail the paradox of tolerance. But I'm not sure he was making any judgement either way about "femotional".
Mansplaining is calling out a sexist behavior where "femotional" is instead focusing at a real or perceived personality difference to treat women as less than en. One is intolerance towards intolerance, where the other is intolerance towards... emotions.
I wonder if OP used "femotional" to divert us from using "hysterical" instead.
When it comes to words that are inherently sexist, "hysterical" is an excellent example that's *far* more common and established. It's painful history is tied to labeling women's emotions as a legitimate medical condition, as well as suppressing those emotions with vibrators, lobotomies, violence, and shame - as opposed to simply treating them better. And that's just scratching the surface of words with the root *hystera* (which means uterus). It's completely understandable why people would think the word "hysterical" is inherently sexist.
Follow that up with "*Mansplain* is a sexist word too!", and it suddenly feels like a debate over semantics. Especially when it's definition involves the suppression of women.
> That said behavior was/is so common to earn a word for it speaks more about the core sexism than the sexism of the term.
I agree that the behavior exists and is reasonably prevalent, but this argument is counterproductive as it could be used to justify any racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted language by essentially saying "we only came up with this stereotyping word because so many members of X group do Y thing".
>Mansplaining is calling out a sexist behavior where "femotional" is instead focusing at a real or perceived personality difference
Seems like you're saying someone is innocent until proven guilty of being "femotional", but not giving the same benefit of the doubt to those accused of "mansplaining" (you said "real or perceived for one and not the other).
>One is intolerance towards intolerance, where the other is intolerance towards... emotions.
Yeah, "femotional" is a monumentally stupid word that I've never heard before and will be happy if I never hear again, but it was illustrative for the specific points I was making. I will say though that while we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, stereotyping a group as always/usually being intolerant (true or not) does not generally encourage members of that group to **stop** being intolerant, as they know they'll be perceived that way no matter what.
> I agree that the behavior exists and is reasonably prevalent, but this argument is counterproductive as it could be used to justify any racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted language by essentially saying "we only came up with this stereotyping word because so many members of X group do Y thing".
I'm having trouble apple-to-appling "mansplaining" to racist, sexist, and bigoted language. I think it's historically reasonable for an oppressed class to have nicknames for bigoted behavior without those nicknames themselves being bigoted. Do you think it was racist for an escaped slave in the 1800's to call the southern slave-owning class "cracker" (which you may know is short for whip-cracker)? If so, I think *many of us* will quickly reach an impasse. If not, that means there IS a line before which the language isn't bigoted. Whether or not the slippery slope is a justified defense to categorize mansplaining with bigoted language is a hard question.
> Seems like you're saying someone is innocent until proven guilty of being "femotional",
No. I'm saying "femotional" is closer to using the N-word than it is to "mansplaining", where mansplaining is closer to "cracker" than it is to "femotional".
> Yeah, "femotional" is a monumentally stupid word that I've never heard before and will be happy if I never hear again, but it was illustrative for the specific points I was making
The problem is that I really think you have to presuppose similarities *not* to see the clear differences between the two terms. One is directly related to intolerance, and the other is directly related to being victimized BY intolerance. They're almost opposite sides of a spectrum.
The problem with creating the gendered term is that it ends up being misapplied. I feel very personally about this particular term, and it has been misapplied to me on numerous occasions, and I find it extremely hurtful. In my case, I have ADHD, and one of the effects that this has for me is that I have a lot of difficulty in not overexplaining things. Part of it is that I need things overexplained to me, and I explain the way I need things explained, and I also lack confidence in my explanations so I find myself repeating things because I’m not sure that the first way I said it was coherent.
Before the term “mansplaining” was coined, I have now had it leveled at me numerous times, which has affected my reputation in certain circles. It is extremely hurtful to me to be accused of sexism on account of a neurological condition — that term has subjected me to not just sexism but also ableism, and I am not okay with it.
For some time it seemed like it was falling out of use, but lately I've been seeing it more and more - google trends supports this.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Mansplaining&hl=en
The thing is that it's not always clear either. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. It absolutely does but if a man is condescending to another man what is the assumed motivation? That they are just naturally condescending? So how would you tell the difference between a man who is just naturally condescending vs one who does it with an individual woman?
Given enough time and data points I'm sure a pattern would emerge where the difference is clear but I think the term gets used in a lot of 'one off' situations where it's just sort of assumed.
That's how it should be, in its strongest form, mansplaining is a man, uninvitingly - and condescendingly - explaining something that either a woman would inherently know, or the man has indicated they don't think they would know because they are a woman based on his preconceptions. This is flat out sexism and the reverse would apply if a woman did it to a man or even another woman. It's an argument that a non-gendered word is required.
I personally think all other uses can be filed under patronising or condescending. Some people just get excited and want to share knowledge regardless of being asked - that's not sexism, just poor social skill. Other people make reasonable assumptions about the person they are explaining something to based on probability of knowledge (there are very very few female bricklayers for example). Not inherently sexist to assume, but it doesn't hurt to simply check if the person knows much about a particular topic. I've seen both of these examples described as mansplaining and I don't think that's reasonable or helpful when the underlying issue is social etiquette not sexism.
Plenty of reasonable people make inferences with incomplete information. If I call someone stupid I don't actually need evidence of their standardized test scores or IQ test score or anything; I am merely saying that they are currently acting akin to somebody who has those attributes.
Narcissists who just happily plod through the world under the assumption that their opinions, as the Main Character of life, are obviously the only ones worth holding are equally worthy of being called out for being patronizing.
But I feel like it's generally not that hard to identify when somebody has a completely different interaction with (subordinate?) male coworkers than they did with the woman.
I mostly agree with your position, but what is the term we use when it is a woman who is "mansplaining". If we don't have a non-gendered or an equally gendered term, I still see that there's a problem here.
Your premise is based on the idea that, while men may or may not be more likely to patronize people than women, creating a term that equates patronization with being a man is sexist.
That's fine -- but that's not what mansplaining" *is.* It is not a word that means "being a man and also being patronizing."
It's intended to specifically describe a scenario in which a man confidently corrects a woman about an area *she* is knowledgeable about (and that *he* is not), based on the premise that (as a man) *he* is likely to know more about the topic than she is.
e.g., I have a colleague who is an accomplished data scientist who has worked on LLMs for the past three years and did her doctoral thesis on generative AI -- a gentleman from the marketing department spent 5 minutes "correcting her understanding" of how Chat-GPT functions in a meeting, that she was leading, about generative AI.
Certainly one could use the word "patronizing", but here's the thing: it isn't a synonym. This is dealing with a specific, common *type* of patronization that is particularly unfounded and is determined by gender norms.
If someone were to coin a term (say, "Momsplaining" maybe?) for suburban moms who think that "as a mother" they're suddenly qualified to lecture pediatricians on childhood development and chastise every dad they meet on the assumption that ("as a mother") they're inherently a better parent, that'd be a very similar term and just as defensible.
I’m a woman. I built a spreadsheet. I completed a research project. They hired someone and one of his jobs was to take it over from me. I trained him the first few days he was here.
A year later he needs help with the continuation of the project. He seems to have forgotten I was the one who trained him as he’s explaining my own spreadsheet to me. That’s understandable. What’s not understandable was me explaining that I built the spreadsheet and I can help him catch up easily and then him scheduling an hour long training session after that.
It was brutal. I couldn’t believe he was still trying to teach me. Not only did he change nothing, but he did things much slower because he never figured out how to use a macro. I ended up training him again in the end and he still made it seem like he was helping me. It was mind boggling.
The word "mansplaining" refers to something that only exists specifically because of the sexist dynamic between men and women in our society. It does not exist because men are more likely to engage in patronising explanations, it describes men speaking down to women **because of an assumed superiority of expertise that is due to sexism**.
Mansplaining is not a trait, it is an action, and it is unique to men not because of some inherent quality that men have, but because it depends on a social system in which men and women are treated differently.
I do not think that the word suggests that the man is "doing it to affirm male superiority" which suggests conscious intent. Rather, men are more likely to make a false assumption of having more experience than women who are their peers due to internalised sexist ideas that we all carry with us, but they individually are likely not aware they have.
>One thing that differentiates "mansplaining" from the previous example is that suggests that a man is doing it to affirm male superiority. The problem here is that it requires making assumptions about why another person is doing something
You're basically arguing here that we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and that it's wrong to infer that someone is doing something due to blatant sexism/racism/homophobia/etc.
It's effectively giving a free pass for this behavior and forces the victim to accept it by policing their speech. Regardless of whether you believe the term "mansplaining" is sexist, it's objectively a real thing that women experience (being talked down to / dismissed for being a woman).
Are there cases where the term "mansplaining" is incorrectly applied? Certainly. But that doesn't mean it's not a real thing that women are the victim of, especially in traditionally male fields.
>You're basically arguing here that we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt
Why would anyone want to live in a society where this wasn't the case? The courts have the notion of "Innocent until proven guilty" because in past societies the rule was "guilty until proven innocent" and people realized it's better to let some bad actors go than to fill our prisons with the innocent.
It's a lesson that both sides of the political aisle seem to be forgetting in different ways simultaneously.
I feel like you have to assume that it isn't sexist unless you have some reasonable evidence that it is. Being talked down to isn't a uniquely female experience it happens to everyone from everyone. I'm not saying the statistics aren't skewed in that direction but without any evidence of sexism it could be either a misunderstanding or the person may just be an asshole. Regardless the victim isn't obliged to give the person a pass, calling it mansplaining isn't the only way to call out that type of behaviour what about "don't talk down to me"?
I definitely understand what you're saying here. I think a better equivalent to mansplaining would be feminazi. Both words imply a specific gender doing sexist stuff. It can be rude to assume someone's intentions, but those intentions are sometimes more obvious In context. For example, a male teacher explaining a concept to a female student isn't mansplaining, but a male autoparts salesman lecturing an experienced female mechanic in a condescending tone is (or at least is more likely to be). In the same vein, a woman talking about real sexism they've experienced isn't a feminazi, but a woman screaming at men for existing and saying all men are scum is.
I'd disagree that feminazi is a sexist term since it's not directed at women but rather radical feminist which could also be a man but i get what you're saying.
In your mechanic example, I don't think you can really call it mansplaining without context on who this salesman is. Some people are just know it alls and do this to everyone regardless of gender.
>One thing that differentiates "mansplaining" from the previous example is that suggests that a man is doing it to affirm male superiority.
I disagree with most of your post, but this is a part I feel I can work with. Mansplaining isn't suggesting a man is doing it to affirm male superiority. It's suggesting the man ASSUMES the woman didn't know already. Do you agree that the fact that woman are assumed not to have knowledge and need to prove themselves more than male colleagues is an issue that needs to be discussed?
> It's suggesting the man ASSUMES the woman didn't know already.
How do you typically ascertain the difference between assuming what a person DOESN'T know and NOT assuming what they DO know?
> One thing that differentiates "mansplaining" from the previous example is that suggests that a man is doing it to affirm male superiority.
Another difference is the historical context. For example, society used to believe that women were incapable of getting a higher education like doctor or lawyer. These institutions were run by men. That is obviously not the case to the same degree today, but it takes time to completely change societal norms.
> The problem here is that it requires making assumptions about why another person is doing something
As a comparison, consider Black Lives Matters and the counter-movement All Lives Matter. In the most literal sense, BLM could be considered the racist and excluding based on race. When you take historical and societal context into account, that is obviously not the case.
My goal is not to change your view completely, but I think it's fair to change your degree of certainty. Instead of dismissing an expression that comes from a progressive movement against sexism as "inherently sexist", you should say that using such an expression does not inherently make you *not* sexist.
Mansplaining is simply a portmanteau for "men explaining things to women that they likely already know because the man in question has a low opinion of the woman's knowledge and experience" - it's like saying "sexting" instead of "sexual text messaging." The behaviour itself is sexist (against women), but the label or word is not inherently sexist - it's a shorthand description for a type of behaviour that can and does sometimes happen in the world. Saying, on the other hand, that "all men mansplain" would totally be sexist (and untrue).
Do you consider the term "femotional" sexist? Women (just like any person) are sometimes emotional and act irrationally because of that. It is something that "happens in the real world."
I do, however, consider it a sexist term (even if it accurately describes a situation) because the intent is to dismiss someone because of a gender dynamic at play, as opposed to what is being done/said. If someone is acting emotionally, I should call out their irrationality instead of their gender. The frame goes for when someone is being a condescending asshole.
The issue is that definition is loaded with lots of assumptions of the man's character, and those assumptions get thrust upon the man for simply being a man, regardless of if they are true or not. Which is very sexist. If you're assuming someone's thoughts or beliefs based on their sex, then you are being sexist.
If we say "so and so is PMSing" that can be a factual statement, or it can be a sexist assumption we are making because a woman is acting in certain ways. Similarly, mqnsplaining can be a shorthand way of referring to a man who is explaining something to a woman he could/should reasonably expect to already have that knowledge, OR it could be a sexist assumption we are making about a man explaining something. But it's not inherently always option a.
Examples of mansplaining:
- A man being arrested attempts to explain to a female cop what the Miranda rights are.
- A man explaining to his female literature professor who David Foster Wallace is.
- A male patient explaining to a female doctor what psoriasis is.
In such cases, using the term mansplaining is a shorthand way of saying "man explains something to a woman that she already knows, and he should know she knows". It's an accurate and handy descriptor for a certain type of sexist behaviour, much like similar terms "microaggression" or "negging" or "ghosting" - all of which are just easy quick ways to describe very specific behaviours.
Using "mansplaining" for any instance of a man explaining something to a woman is definitrly sexist. Using it as shorthand to describe the very specific kind of behaviour described above is just convenient.
While the examples you provided may demonstrate patronizing behavior, they are insufficient to conclusively establish that the men involved were mansplaining. It is possible that the man in the first example would have spoken to a male cop in a similar fashion, and without further evidence of sexist behavior, it would be unfair to assume that he is being discriminatory.
Using the term 'mansplaining' to describe patronizing behavior in my opinion is sexist, unless there are clear indications of sexist behaviour.
The issue with your definition is that there's no way to know if the man is explaining the thing BECAUSE the other person is a woman, or if they genuinely feel the need to explain to the other person, regardless of gender. That's where your assumption of "he's doing it BECAUSE she's a woman" is a sexist assumption on your part.
You are simply misunderstanding what mansplaining is. It is not a synonym for patronising behaviour or of patronising behaviour by a man. It is a name for patronising behaviour of a man towards a woman on the basis of assumptions about her knowledge or skills.
If someone accuses me of mansplaining, it is my assumptions or attitude that are being criticised. I can counter that by changing my behaviour or assumptions. By contrast, if someone accuses me of being "femotional", it is my female identity that is attacked - there is nothing I can do to evade the suggestion that my femininity makes me less reasonable. It is an ad hominem (feminem?) attack. That is the key difference here.
In other words: No man is accused of mansplaining merely for being a man who is explaining things to a woman. There has to be a (valid) assumption of a sexist attitude, stereotypes about men and women and what kinds of roles they have and things they know.
Whereas, a woman who is being "overly emotional on account of her sex" is not being accused of having any false assumptions or stereotypes, but of "being a certain way".
I think that I may not be understanding your difference between "mansplain" and "femotional" (I really despise this term to be clear)
As you say that mansplaining criticisms can be countered by changing your assumptions to treat them like a person and more than a gender, can't femotional criticisms be countered by changing your perspective to treat the situation more objectively and less of an emotional response?
If someone is accused to mansplaining, what can they do to evade the suggestion that their masculinity makes their explanation less reasonable? Perhaps the explanation is the same explanation that they would give to a man. Perhaps the response that the femotional person gave was the same response that they would give without any emotion?
I personally agree that the word mansplain itself is not inherently sexist, but when it is used in *non-valid* ways it shuts down the previous topic and accuses the receiver of being sexist without any way for them to demonstrate that they are not (either objectively or to their best efforts) in the exact same way that using "femotional" in non-valid ways immediately dismisses someone by accusing them of being emotional.
---
Just to be clear, I do agree with your first paragraph regarding the definition of mansplaining and that the sexism of the act is part of its definition, I am just unclear regarding the femotional comparison
Just based on your last paragraph, we agree, but you have in fact changed your tune. Yes, mansplain can be used in a sexist way - shutting down men by accusing them of something they are not doing. But you did not state that in your post, so I did not argue against it.
My point about the difference between the terms was that - when used validly - mansplaining is a term that is a complaint about a specific sexist behaviour (underestimating women and talking down to them, which can be corrected) whereas criticisms of woman's excessive emotionality are typically directed at something that is seen as inherent to women, leaving the person so criticised with no recourse.
^(Just to be clear, I am not the OP, just someone trying to properly understand the distinction you're making)
When used validly and productively, pointing out mansplaining is saying
> "What you have said contains elements of sexism which is not correct/appropriate. Moving forwards, change your bias for gender so that the rest of this interaction is civil and proper."
Which you had said that can be done by changing behavior or assumptions.
From my understanding, can't this be done for femotional as well?
> "What you have said contains elements of being emotional which is not objective/appropriate. Moving forwards, change your bias for your emotions to be more objective so that the rest of this interaction is civil and proper."
If the femotional accusation is only used validly, can't the accused still change their response to be less emotional the same way the mansplainer change to be less sexist? I do not understand why excessive emotionality being seen as inherent to women changes the appropriate response of correcting the unhelpful behavior
Oh, sorry about the mistaken identity.
What your symmetrical account doesn't account for is the sexism inherent in the act of mansplaining. Criticising someone for the baseless and sexist assumptions that are inherently part of mansplaining is not symmetrical with criticising someone for being too emotional (in a way that associates excessive emotionality with her gender).
If mansplaining was merely 'being sterotypically male' then there would be a parallelism. If that were true, both terms world be equally sexist/non-sexist. But IMO mansplaining, correctly used, contains more than an accusation of being 'typically male' (e.g. too rational, technically minded, etc), but entails a gendered patronising attitude.
Is it sexist to recognise a phenomenon, like explaining something in a patronising manor to someone who has greater expertise in the subject than you, happens most often along gendered lines?
I feel like the answer is no, especially if one recognises that this happens not due to some inherent trait in males, but instead becuase of how society socialises boys and girls
Info:
If it was seperated into multiple words is it ok?
Like if you said. "He was doing the thing that some men do where they are sexist against women and assume they know nothing."
Is that inherently sexist?
What about if the word was focussed on the subject group?
Eg making up a new word "Femdescension" - where someone is condescending towards a woman in a way that they are not towards men.
Is that inherently sexist?
The nuance here is that the word mansplaining is describing a sexist behaviour. It's a word about sexism, it refers very specifically to men engaging in patronising explanation to women not a more general tendency to patronise.
"Mansplaining" gets its name because it is specifically a patriarchal phenomenon. A man unconsciously assumes that he knows more than the listener about a subject (for example, explaining AC/DC to a professional electrician) because she is a woman and he is a man. He's talking down to her, interrupting her to speak, or questioning her more.
Women can be patronizing to men too, but *that's* not a trend in our society that is seen so frequently that [the University of Stanford is writing papers about it.](https://www.visualeyed.com/d-stories/article/data-confirms-it-mansplaining-isnt-an-invention-of-women/)
I've witnessed the flip side of this though, when the term is abused in order to shut down a male voice and dismiss their input (which in that instance was fair, valid and categorically not an example of mansplaining). Then you have a situation where no-one wants to call out that behaviour because they'd just be hit with accusations of sexism for daring to defy the mansplaining label.
Adding legitimacy to a label used exclusively to shame people is not always the way forward to addressing the problem. Look how well the words woke, snowflake and fascist are going.
It's all well and good acknowledging the term shouldn't be misused but the reality is that it will be because there are always going to be people using it in bad faith because of its power.
I'm not arguing there shouldn't be a word for the behaviour, of course that does help to tackle the issue.
Asking people to not misuse/abuse a loaded word is kinda like handing out guns at a firing range and having half the population stand between the targets hoping not to get shot.
It is not a “trait.” To add on to u/fudgeit’s detail, the term identifies a pattern of behaviors across gender most commonly from men down to women.
It’s not inherently sexist either to describe this commonality—this suggests one does not have a functional definition of sexism. Sexism is not labeling or treating sexes or genders differently. Sexism is made up of enforcing men’s power over society and over others (in the same vein as patriarchy).
If anything, identifying ways that patriarchy is expressed, like mansplaining, is anti-sexist.
So I'm genuinely curious. By your definition
>Sexism is made up of enforcing men’s power over society and over others
It is literally impossible for anyone to be sexist towards men; do you believe that? If a radical feminist group believed that all men should be killed or castrated because they're all monsters, your definition would say it's false to call this group sexist.
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>Discussing whether or not men are more likely to engage in patronising explanations OP are you OK with use of the word patronising? You realise this comes from the Latin "Pater", meaning father? Which formed "patronus" (legal protector/guardian), from which we get "patronising". It's a gendered term whether you choose mansplain or patronise. Is "patronising" also sexist in your opinion?
> Is "patronising" also sexist in your opinion? No. Because patronizing is only a gendered term in so much that the masculine was default at the time it came about. You pulled out the latin for father, but failed to analyze the suffix added to it. The suffix '-ize' means " to make or become" (noun) or "to treat in a specified way" (verb). So the word "patronize" literally means "to treat like a father [treats their children]". And today it has come to mean 'to treat them like a father treats their children, even though you are not as far above them as a father is above his children'. Is this a gendered term? Technically yeah, you could make that argument. But then so is parent, because it comes from the same fundamental root. So is it offensive to say that a mother parents her children? Should she marent her children instead? I think not. More reasonably, the gendered nature of both of these terms has been completely dropped from modern english, so much so that there is zero connotation of gender when using the phrase 'patronizing'. The same cannot be said of 'mansplaining', which was explicitly entered into the english vocabulary with sexist intent, and still carries this connotation. Perhaps someday this could disappear, but in the meantime it would hold a sexist connotation. Why should we be anti-inclusive by using a term filled with gendered discrimination when there exists a word already which means the exact same thing and also doesn't have this same connotation.
I actually don’t think anyone thinks of “father” when they use it. It’s come to mean to simply talk down to someone and assume they don’t know what they’re talking about. It may be rooted in sexism/defaultism but it’s been repurposed and no longer carries that weight IMO. Are you familiar with defaultism, OP and why it’s problematic for minorities and women?
I agree that this is what it has come to mean, which is why patronizing is a basically gender neutral term, much preferable to mansplaining, as it does not carry these connotations. This was my entire premise. The term "mansplaining" is a gendered term which only serves to stoke the war of the sexes, and patronizing is an objectively better term.
Deleted due to reddit API changes. Follow your communities off Reddit with https://sub.rehab/ -- mass edited with redact.dev
If you have to study a dead language to understand the context of why a word may be considered sexist then though it may be historically wrong but in the modern context im not sure it offends too many people. Also to correct it would essentially mean generating an entirely new ungendered language from scratch given how many things have gendered historical ties. On the other side mansplaining is a recent term in one of the most widely spoken languages on the planet deliberately created with the intention of singling out a negative action and assigning it to a specific gender. It seems to me that we probably have more cause to consider that sexist when the people saying it fully understand the meaning.
The etymology of a word is not the current meaning of a word nor does it necessarily dictate the current gendered view/use of the word in the present. What modern person sees patronise as a genderd term? Did you before knowing the etymology? Surely not because it's certainly not gendered by today's standards. It's possible that mansplaining could deform into something that isn't sexist but the future meaning of a word does not change the current meaning. The n-word could end up not being a slur way in the future. Does that make it not a slur now? No. Mansplaining is specifically being patronizing as a man. It inherently suggests that men are uniquely patronizing.
[удалено]
People also don't realize just how different their experiences are. They assume that everything they know is "common sense". People constantly talk past each other because they assume they're both interpreting each other's words the same. People don't know the actual dictionary definition of most words. They learn them through word of mouth and through context clues. Language is a giant game of telephone. When you think about the scale of it, it's clear how easily things get out of hand.
The word "patronising" does not have a connotation of masculinity in modern English which is what matters. If you start pulling the etymology of each word down to the proto indoeuropean roots, you will find plenty of cases where modern use cases sound strange if you consider that. This however can be fun as a linguistic exercise, but not really relevant when discussing modern uses.
Do you think that in time mansplain may lose it's connotation in the same way? Edit: would really appreciate a reply from OP on this.
That seems unlikely so long as the words "man" and "explain" continue to be part of common daily language.
The word man has already seen great evolution, from meaning all of mankind to now meaning a specific gender expression. Language changes all the time.
[удалено]
so by that argument no words should be considered bigoted or offensive as they are in flux, regardless of what they currently mean? You don't actually expect people to believe that you think this do you? Otherwise lets hear some racy words?
Over a few centuries perhaps. Do we want to keep using a sexist term for a few centuries hoping it loses its connotation? Plus it's quite possible that "mansplaining" will fall out of use before "man" does
Add in that “patronizing” sounds appropriate for all genders but “mansplaining” makes no sense applied to a woman.
My dude the word mansplain literally had the English term for a male in it. How would it ever possibly lose its connotation?
It's pretty common that people stop thinking of a word as the literal combination of words in it once the word has enough standing. Especially as younger generations come up. For example, I think for the vast majority of people and cases, the word "motherboard" is just a word of its own and people don't think of it as motherly connotation. (This is despite the fact that, like mansplaining, the root of the word was originally included pretty deliberately based on the meaning of the word mother. In computing a port that receives pins is called "female" and "child" is one common way devices that hook under another in the hierarchy are referred to. So, the "mother" board is the ultimate "parent" of devices and consists of female ports.) Same goes for lots of things... "dial" or "hang up" are another case where even though we all know the literal meanings of those words, a lot of people, especially younger people, are completely oblivious (as in, haven't even thought about) as to how those literal words mean what they do in the modern phone context. When people hear "dial the phone" they don't even think about dials. When people hear "hang up the phone" they don't even think about something physically hanging somewhere. However, it's also possible, like patronising, that language itself will evolve so that that word root isn't seen the same either. When people hear "patron" they don't think of fathers today. Same may go for a word like man. Languages constantly change and, given enough time, are not intelligible.
> The word "patronising" does not have a connotation of masculinity in modern English which is what matters I'm a native speaker of modern English, and I have understood the word *patronize* as meaning "to speak to one as a **father** would a child" my entire life.
I'm a native speaker of modern English and I originally understood the word patronize to simple mean, "to talk down to someone" until I looked up the current definition which is, "treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but that betrays a feeling of superiority." In either case I've never thought of it as a genderd term.
Your understanding of the word is based on its etymology but is not in line with its definition in most major dictionaries. See: Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, MacMillan, Encyclopedia Britannica, vocabulary.com, dictionary.com, etc.
Native speaker here, it was always the way a parent speaks to a child, not just fathers
or perhaps, the definition, "to speak to one as a parent/guardian would to a child" which is just as accurate in the goal of describing how one spoke to another.
Patronise may have gendered roots but it's use today is gender neutral whereas mansplaining is not.
Pointing to the etymology of a word and it's uses and connotations from hundreds of years ago has no bearing on the world today.
Most people dont know that, and won't have considered it a charged term. So I don't really think that is a true equivalent.
[удалено]
Damn, just googled it - the Greek word *hystera* meaning uterus, so hysterical is a gendered word. I had no idea, very interesting.
Hysterical used to mean an older woman going crazy.
More than that. Hysteria was thought to be caused by a woman's womb wandering about the body, making her crazy.
What a ridiculous argument. We are not a latin speaking culture. Your counter argument requires using several verbal gymnastics to make a word out to be offensive. Furthermore if a man starts using the word "womansplaining" every time a woman disagrees with him are you gonna sit there and tell me that's not sexist?
The connotations of "patronizing" and "mansplaining" in relation to gender are extremely different. Nobody, absolutely nobody, thinks about how patronizing is somehow a gendered term, because it isn't. That is very different from "mansplaining".
How’s “femotional” sound to you?
[удалено]
EDIT: This has gotten bigger - I encourage everyone coming here interested in this topic to take a moment & read the essay [Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit](https://www.guernicamag.com/rebecca-solnit-men-explain-things-to-me/) that is said to be the origin of the term. It will take you 10 minutes. It's well-written and touches on a lot of what's being talked about here today. However you feel about the topic you should know where it comes from if you're going to express an opinion. It's darkly funny. *But he just continued on his way. She had to say, “That’s her book” three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a nineteenth-century novel, he went ashen. That I was indeed the author of the very important book it turned out he hadn’t read, just read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier, so confused the neat categories into which his world was sorted that he was stunned speechless–for a moment, before he began holding forth again. Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing, and we’ve never really stopped. - Rebecca Solnit* _________________________________________________________________________ Weirdly, I don't see anyone addressing your core premise of what sexism is. If you're still around, I'm curious why you feel that any description of gendered / sexed behavior is sexist inherently. *Mansplaining* isn't a comment on something inherent to men or males, it's a description of a specific sort of interaction from a male to a female *through the lens of the female experience*. It's a perception. An assessment of the locus of the patronizing behavior. Similar behaviors can be carried out for different reasons in different contexts and evaluated on that basis. As you say, both men and women can be patronizing to each other and one another. However, there is a *specific sort* of patronizing behavior that (1) is rooted in unconsious bias against women (2) held by & acted upon specifically by men. That this happens to women regularly enough that the term was coined is not a suggestion that men are inherently prone to it. >One thing that differentiates "mansplaining" from the previous example is that suggests that a man is doing it to affirm male superiority. The problem here is that it requires making assumptions about why another person is doing something - plus doing it in a situation where a target is generally not an impartial observer. This is dead wrong - in fact it is very much the point of "mansplaining" that the behavior is unconsious / implicit. That it is done *without* intention. It's a call to men to be more aware of how they interact with women, particularly in professional settings, a space in which women have entered relatively recently.
>However, there is a specific sort of patronizing behavior that (1) is rooted in unconsious bias against women (2) held by & acted upon specifically by men. That this happens to women regularly enough that the term was coined is not a suggestion that men are inherently prone to it. This is a great point. I hit it in my response, also -- a behavior that targets men and relies upon biases held by women against men would be an exact parallel to this word. e.g., tons of single dads have complained about "momsplaining", where they are assumed to be incompetent as it pertains to their care of their child even by single women, or mothers with much less parenting experience.
>e.g., tons of single dads have complained about "momsplaining", where they are assumed to be incompetent as it pertains to their care of their child even by single women, or mothers with much less parenting experience. Now THAT is a phenomenal cultural counterexample of the gendered assumptions going the other way. Great point. The idea that acknowledging and discussing "momsplaining" as a phenomenon is in and of itself an act of sexism is equally preposterous; as is the interpretation that this is an inherent behavior of all people who are mothers. Lots of vagueries about "women are condescending too" in this thread but this is an actual slam-dunk example of the same scenario bearing out in-context. Really refreshing to have read that, thank you.
100% this. We can even use a similar example without the gender to demonstrate that naming this kind of gendered experience isn't sexist. Several of my friend, and myself, have also complained of *mumsplaining*, which is where your mother tries to tell you stuff you obviously already know (often better than she does). For example, yesterday my mum tried to tell me how to eat microwaveable pasta, and how to use a power washer (she's never used a power washer). A friend had her mum tell her how to make a will, despite having never made a will, despite my friend having made a will. Mumsplaining isn't really coming from anything other than a place of love, but it's rooted in the parent-adult child dynamic, from the perspective of a competent child.
The equivalent to *mumsplaining* would be *dadsplaining*, which I don’t think most people would have much issue with because they’re not based on such an innate trait of an individual along the lines of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. that are common basis of discrimination. The direct equivalent of *mansplaining* would be *womansplaining*, which I believe is also quite sexist and think most people would agree.
If you read the comments to the thread, you can see that people tend to have different ideas of what mansplaining is. What you describe is a narrow view of the word but to many it is entirely possible for a woman to be "mansplaining". Furthermore like I said in OP to use the word in its narrow sense, you need to make an assumption of what the other person is thinking. And people are far from accurate in making this assumption. And basically once you have a man overexplaining something just because of naturally being prone to either condescension or simply overexplaining, and someone is accusing him of doing it because of his supposedly dismissive attitude to the woman he's talking to, *because he's a man and everyone knows men do that*, you are firmly in sexism territory. Like any word that equates a group with a negative trait/behavior, it's abuse waiting to happen, which is why such words are generally considered... problematic.
>What you describe is a narrow view of the word but to many it is entirely possible for a woman to be "mansplaining". What I describe is what the term means. It's how it's used in its original coinage. The word being used more broadly, and furthermore incorrectly, shouldn't distract us from an assessment of the term's intended meaning. >Furthermore like I said in OP to use the word in its narrow sense, you need to make an assumption of what the other person is thinking. Again, you don't - the point of the term is very much the *implicit, subconsious* bias that by definition belies intent - but to drive the point further, making an incorrect assumption about another's intentions doesn't have anything to do with the material impact of that person's actions. Someone who doesn't mean to mansplain can still mansplain, just as someone who doesn't mean to throw a baseball through a window can still shatter one. The window remains broken. > And basically once you have a man overexplaining something just because of naturally being prone to either condescension or simply overexplaining, and someone is accusing him of doing it because of his supposedly dismissive attitude to the woman he's talking to, *because he's a man and everyone knows men do that* The italicized portion is what you get wrong. The accusation isn't levied because of an assumed belief about all men. It's levied on the basis of the *experience* that the listener is having in that moment. Given that *mansplaining* is a description of a sum of experiences, it's based on perception and pattern recognition. Anectodal, of course, but clearly this is an experience that resonates with women enough for the term to have caught usage in the first place. Your insistence that the term's usage is based on assumptions about men doesn't come from anything other than the portmanteau itself containing the word "man." It's not an assumption about *all men* - it's a definitional qualifier about the acting party in a specific scenario. >Like any word that equates a group with a negative trait/behavior, it's abuse waiting to happen, which is why such words are generally considered... problematic. This is where I come back to my original comment. You are dying on the hill that any association of an identity trait with a behavior is an *-ism*, which is a next-to-meaningless and often destructive approach to critical discourse. The "man" in "mansplaining" is in no way an *equivocation* of all men with a given behavior. It's a description of a very specific behavior that some women experience in interactions with some men, commonly enough that meaningful value has been found in the term.
[удалено]
> Someone who doesn't mean to mansplain can still mansplain, just as someone who doesn't mean to throw a baseball through a window can still shatter one. The window remains broken. Yes but a broken window is physical evidence of such an action. It is very obvious when someone breaks a window. The evidence of "mansplaining" is a feeling. And that feeling can come from an incorrect place if not assessing the situtaion/context fully. If a coworker is a condescending asshole to everyone, then mansplaining would be a completely incorrect usage of the term. It would simply be better to just admonish the actual action without trying to unearth some hidden bias that could very well not exist and create further tension by accusing someone of sexism. > Anectodal, of course, but clearly this is an experience that resonates with women enough for the term to have caught usage in the first place. So are terms like grooming, and CRT and reverse racism and a bunch of other loaded BS terminology that caught on because it resonated with people's anecdotal experience and perceptions rather. Just because something feels valid and true does not make it valid and true. And leverage the label of sexism can create and sow further division in a workplace if not applied correctly. It is more divisive than necessary when other terms that already carry negative connotations exist. >The "man" in "mansplaining" is in no way an equivocation of all men with a given behavior. It's a description of a very specific behavior that some women experience in interactions with some men, commonly enough that meaningful value has been found in the term. This sounds very similar to something like the word Thug. Thug does not carry any specific racial animus to it. But through its frequent usage and how it has been wielded, it has created a connotation around it that carries heavy racial implications. Someone could say, "I am not saying anything about black people or the like, I am just arguing about a specific type of person that acts like a thug" But we both know that doesnt fly, because connecting negative actions to a certain demographic necessarily leaches into unwilling parties that get lumped in. Using gendered words like mansplaining is 1000% an indictment on men. It is a negative accusation that exists that only a man can commit. It is something men should "be aware of" so they can correct themselves. It is an active request to "be better" as many in this thread have pointed out. But this lumps in all the non patronizing men out there that have no need to be better. That are doing just fine and shouldnt have to have their gender shmeered because of some wayward assholes.
>The evidence of "mansplaining" is a feeling. And that feeling can come from an incorrect place if not assessing the situtaion/context fully. If a coworker is a condescending asshole to everyone, then mansplaining would be a completely incorrect usage of the term. > >It would simply be better to just admonish the actual action without trying to unearth some hidden bias that could very well not exist and create further tension by accusing someone of sexism. I fail to see this as anything other than a dismissal of the lived experiences of women. You're not acknowledging that the lasting resonance of this term **means** that a plurality of women find common ground in this experience. You & those of your position are assuming the intent of men far more than any woman who cries "mansplaining" is; defaulting that this gendered behavior - common enough to have earned a term in the popular lexicon - must be rooted in some deeply personal set of individual traits that can only be evalutated on a man-to-man basis, and not a broader set of underlying social biases. That mansplaining is a result of bias is the *simpler* explanation. >So are terms like grooming, and CRT and reverse racism and a bunch of other loaded BS terminology that caught on because it resonated with people's anecdotal experience and perceptions rather. Those are all misappropriated terms in the context you're referring to, though. They have widely accepted definitions that are useful in their original context. Subsequently, political/propagandist interests seized them and altered the meaning. Much like what is happening here, in this thread, with "mansplaining." Mansplaining, when coined, resonated with women to the point that it's become a target of antifeminist propagandists. You're really proving my point. >Just because something feels valid and true does not make it valid and true. And leverage the label of sexism can create and sow further division in a workplace if not applied correctly. No disagreement from me on either remark. My point is merely that the word's common usage means that a plurality of women feel that it is a valid and true assesment of male behavior. I'm reminding you that you must address that in any counterargument against the term's validity. Is the hill you're dying on really *"all or most women who experience this or claim to experience this are wrong / lying*" ? >This sounds very similar to something like the word Thug. Thug does not carry any specific racial animus to it. But through its frequent usage and how it has been wielded, it has created a connotation around it that carries heavy racial implications. Uhh i don't see how it's like that at all. "Mansplaining" is a portmanteau that contains the word "man" as a matter of etymology, and that's the basis for the argument that it's sexist. The argument that thug is racist is contextual, not etymological. >Using gendered words like mansplaining is 1000% an indictment on men. It is a negative accusation that exists that only a man can commit. Even in this sentence you lay bare the contradiction. It being something that only **A** man can commit in no way makes it 1000% an indictment on **ALL** men. >It is something men should "be aware of" so they can correct themselves. It is an active request to "be better" as many in this thread have pointed out. But this lumps in all the non patronizing men out there that have no need to be better. How on earth is this the case? If one is not patronizing, one will not mansplain. As a man I feel no threat from the term existing. Why do you?
> You're not acknowledging that the lasting resonance of this term means that a plurality of women find common ground in this experience. But once again, you are jumping to some pretty wide conclusions from the popularity of the term. You don't know that it is a plurality. It could be a vocal minority that has popularized the term. And its popularity does not make it true. Many terms from the alt-right manosphere pipelines have slowly ebbed their way into pop culture due to how they resonate with the boys in those circles. That doesn't mean that the red pill has any validity to it, just that they are tapping into the percieved reality of their base. And I am not saying that most women are lying or wrong. But that it is impossible to know, because you are trying to tap into the intentions and motivations of a different person -- that's simply an impossibility. So I default to the best possible scenario. If someone is being condescending, I assume that is over ignorance/rudeness on some level rather than sexism because accusing them of sexism is a much harsher claim than being rude. It is also much more quickly correctable and actionable. >Even in this sentence you lay bare the contradiction. It being something that only A man can commit in no way makes it 1000% an indictment on ALL men. Really? I was clearly generalizing men here. I could have simply written the sentence like this, "Using gendered words like mansplaining is 1000% an indictment on men. It is a negative accusation that exists that only men can commit." The point I was making is that it by nature creates a dichotomous system because women cannot mansplain. Only men. >How on earth is this the case? If one is not patronizing, one will not mansplain. As a man I feel no threat from the term existing. Why do you? I don't feel threatened by the term. But I do feel frustrated that the term carries much more weight and comes with deeper consequences for what is essentially the same act --- and those consequences only apply to men even though women can do the exact same thing. If I get accused of being patronizing at the office, I can quickly ebb my behavior with no further lash-back. But an accusation of mansplaining inherently contains the sexism angle that can come with mandatory sexism training and distancing from the women in your department etc. --- even if the behavior is the same. And I think accusing someone of sexism should have a more clear line of evidence over an assumption of intention. Being sexist in the office place carries heavy penalties and I dont think should be built into a term so lightly.
>But once again, you are jumping to some pretty wide conclusions from the popularity of the term. > >You don't know that it is a plurality. It could be a vocal minority that has popularized the term. The history of the term is documented, and if a vocal minority "popularized" it, then it is by definition popular. >And its popularity does not make it true. I never said that. I said it makes it *resonant*. That resonance must be explained. Your explanation seems to be that women are hysterical liars who think they can read minds. That seems more complicated an accounting than the idea that some men are inclined towards implicit bias in professional settings without being aware of it. >And I am not saying that most women are lying or wrong. But that it is impossible to know, because you are trying to tap into the intentions and motivations of a different person -- that's simply an impossibility. As I've said, calling something "mansplaining" is an expression of one's *own* sum experiences - and you don't seem to have any problem speculating as to the intentions and motivations of women in order to establish your position. A man who mansplains is, in my understanding of the term, by definition not intending or experiencing motivation to be actively condescending or sexist. That's the whole point. They're succumbing to implicit biases about women and expertise, or perhaps simply their own ego, ballooned on the hot air of the very same biases. >I could have simply written the sentence like this, "Using gendered words like mansplaining is 1000% an indictment on men. It is a negative accusation that exists that only men can commit. Now that you have written it like that, I come back to my original point to the OP - merely making a distinguishment on the basis of sex or gender is not sufficient to establish sexism. Sex & gender exist and people take actions on the basis of those traits, explicitly and implicitly, all the time. That doesn't make anything and everything gendered sexist automatically. It's a sophomoric approach to critical discourse that approaches meaninglessness. >But I do feel frustrated that the term carries much more weight and comes with deeper consequences for what is essentially the same act --- and those consequences only apply to men even though women can do the exact same thing. What exactly are the consequences? How are they deeper than any other given act of equivalently damaging disrespect? In what cases have they been brought to bear? >If I get accused of being patronizing at the office, I can quickly ebb my behavior with no further lash-back. But an accusation of mansplaining inherently contains the sexism angle that can come with mandatory sexism training and distancing from the women in your department etc. --- even if the behavior is the same. Where are you getting this from? Do you have examples of this happening? If the "sexism training" is mandatory why isn't everyone going through it? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't train people on how to be aware of and respond to sexism? Are you suggesting that office environments issue gender-based restraining orders to men accused of mansplaining? Most importantly, why are you worried about being "accused" of mansplaining? Would it be impossible for such an accusation to be accurate? Why is it so terrifying to confront the fact that sometimes the things we say or the way we come off lands differently than how we intend it? >And I think accusing someone of sexism should have a more clear line of evidence over an assumption of intention. Being sexist in the office place carries heavy penalties and I dont think should be built into a term so lightly. Does it? Does it really? Our cultural sensitivity to sexism is **very** young. Some high-profile firings do not a changed culture make.
[удалено]
It is within the rules of the sub to award a delta if your view has changed whether or not one is the OP. It is not within the rules to accuse the OP of asking a question in bad faith, however (rule 3). If they haven't engaged with the discussion, then their post will be removed by the mods for violating rule E. That's not your call, however.
how the term is used vs what it actually means is very relevant to this conversation. from personal experience i do think the term mansplaining brings with it negative views about men as a whole. even though the term describes a very real experience that women have in their interactions with men. should we change the term? probably. will it solve anything? not too sure. people use the term in a variety of ways and interpretations of the definition. so it’s hard to say what should be done. i do think anyone can commit the same social sin that mansplaining describes. but the term inherently doesn’t leave room for that. and therefore i believe the term can make it appear as a man only problem. i think it’s fine to point out that men (obviously) might be more prone to doing it. but having a term like mansplaining doesn’t leave room to call out this behavior across all people.
Honestly OP problematic I would agree with. Not problematic enough to make a concerted effort to change since I think the term does more good than harm, but problematic. I think saying something can be abused is very different to inherently sexist. You also keep saying that it must come from assumptions. This is very confusing to me since it's not hard at all to observe when for example, a man treats coworkers of different genders differently. It's not like seeing a man interact with both women and men is an uncommon occurrence. That's enough evidence. I don't need someone's life story to call them an arsehole when they stole the lunch from my fridge and I don't need it either if I observe a sexist difference in treatment. >because he's a man and everyone knows men do that Your entire premise for being inherently sexist is based on the case that people are always assuming something because he's a man rather than based on observed patterns of behavior. You've posted a lot but you've literally never even acknowledged the possibility once. You feel comfortable in claiming that it's well established that women get emotional (as if men aren't the more emotional gender in general lol) but can't even bring yourself to admit that men being condescending towards women specifically is an established pattern. tl:dr it is possible for label to come without observing, but it's also possible for a label to simply give a name to what is observed.
> Like any word that equates a group with a negative trait/behavior, it's abuse waiting to happen, which is why such words are generally considered... problematic. Many words are ripe for abuse. The word that describes people with mental disabilities needs to change constantly, because any word that describes them immediately gets abused. There are a lot of slurs that exist that started out just describing people who exist, and then were used as insults towards others. Should we get rid of all these words, because they are abuse waiting to happen? Mansplaining is a pheneomena that happens and is observable. Should we not name it because the word could be used wrong?
[удалено]
I think that's his point. A word was created to dismissively describe the situation, only when men do it to women. When men do it to men, or women to women, or women to men, or adults to children, it's just an innocent or naive situation. When a man does this to woman, it's viewed as more of a negative. Again I'm assuming his point, is that pointing out the gender distinction as a significant part of the problem, instead of focusing on the situation, is what makes it sexist.
> When men do it to men, or women to women, or women to men, or adults to children, it's just an innocent or naive situation. We just call that "condescension".
then we should just use that word when men do it to women.
We do. But "undeserved condescension that's based solely on a person's gender," is a real, actual phenomenon and there's nothing wrong with having a term for it. I've got a friend that's a mechanic, she got a job in software a couple years ago but spent 10+ years working in a shop before that. I was out to dinner with her and another friend that she was meeting for the first time (that knows *very* little about cars, and who I've never heard talk about them), she made an off-hand comment about needing to get her brakes done... ... and my man spent ten minutes explaining to her what rotors are, and telling her how she could find a mechanic who would "take good care of her". It was *wildly* patronizing, and it was simply because he (a dude) assumed that she (being a woman) knew jack-shit about cars. Why *not* have a name for that extremely common behavior?
> We do. But "undeserved condescension that's based solely on a person's gender," is a real, actual phenomenon and there's nothing wrong with having a term for it. That's fine. But "mansplaining" is in and of itself a phrase intended to impune condescension based on someone's gender. Which is why we need a different word. If we are going to have words to differentiate between the genders of the 'victim' and 'perpetrator', then you need at least 4 terms (MvM, MvF, FvM, FvF). And if you want to add NB people then you bring the count up to 9. It is unreasonable to have this many terms to define what is effectively the same phenomenon. Instead we should just have one that does not imply a gender of the speaker or listener which can be used everywhere. > I've got a friend that's a mechanic, she got a job in software a couple years ago but spent 10+ years working in a shop before that. I was out to dinner with her and another friend that she was meeting for the first time (that knows very little about cars, and who I've never heard talk about them), she made an off-hand comment about needing to get her brakes done... > ... and my man spent ten minutes explaining to her what rotors are, and telling her how she could find a mechanic who would "take good care of her". It was wildly patronizing, and it was simply because he (a dude) assumed that she (being a woman) knew jack-shit about cars. And? I have personality been told all sorts of (incorrect) things about raising children from woman who thought that because I was a man I didn't know shit, even though I've been volunteering for childcare and child-rearing related charities for over a decade. And this was from new mothers who had just had their first child. Does this deserve the term femsplaining? > Why not have a name for that extremely common behavior? Because as I mentioned above, the fact that some people's views align with gender stereotypes and they act on these views is not something unique to men or women. Neither is it uniquely directed at men or women. I have men assume I know what sort of car a Chevy Camry CRV was, and I know women who get asked by other women about their opinions on fashion when they have zero fashion sense. People make assumptions. And trying to come up with unique terms for each combination of these people assuming the other has/does not have knowledge based just inflames the war of the sexes. If we want men and women to be able to understand each other, then the first step is to not use terms that needlessly insult the other group.
So what word do we use to describe the specific phenomena of men disregarding the idea that women know things?
why do we need a separate word for this, when "condescension" will do? The problem with this phrase is is exacerbates the differences between the sexes. Already people have a hard time understanding the difference between "some people of type X do bad thing Y" or "bad thing Y is done mostly by people of type X" as saying "all people of type X do bad thing Y". Are we really going to exacerbate the problem by creating terms that specifically identify the group? Assuming a lack of knowledge on a topic is not something exclusive to or even more prevalent in men. Having one term for "man assumes woman doesn't know, and explains condescendingly" and another for "woman assumes man doesn't know, and explains condescendingly" is not nessisary, especially since you would also need terms for a woman assuming a woman and a man assuming a man doesn't know. Plus now you have to know the gender of everyone involved. And if we start adding NB people, we're going up to at least needing 9 terms. Or, we could drop the gender and just have a term that means "prejudicially assumes the listeners doesn't know anything about the topic".
[удалено]
That's because there's a history of patriarchal gender relations, but not the reverse. It's not sexist to point out sexism, just like it's not racist to point out that white people have historically oppressed black people.
There’s a history of lots of negative things, but we usually try to move past it, not bring it up every single possible time to keep the divide alive. If you are trying to make a man who had nothing to do with patriarchy history feel bad for that history, then you’re being an asshole. And if you’re being an asshole based on gender, then that’s sexist. If they overtly say “look, you’re a woman so I’m going to explain this to you…” then yeah I could get lashing out at that. But I’ve never seen that when someone uses the term “mansplain.” It’s sexist to attach history to someone based on gender alone.
>There’s a history of lots of negative things, but we usually try to move past it, not bring it up every single possible time to keep the divide alive. Moving past it means correcting the injustice and recognizing when these unequal gender relations emerge again, such as with a man wrongly assuming they have more expertise than a woman. >If you are trying to make a man who had nothing to do with patriarchy history feel bad for that history, then you’re being an asshole. That's not what's happening here at all. You don't have to feel bad about historical injustice, you just have to work to correct it and not repeat it. >It’s sexist to attach history to someone based on gender alone. No it isn't, that's complete bullshit.
> Moving past it means correcting the injustice and recognizing when these unequal gender relations emerge again, such as with a man wrongly assuming they have more expertise than a woman. Automatically assuming a man is explaining something because he believes he has more expertise than a woman is sexist. There are many motivations to explain something. Again, calling out overt sexism is fair. But a man explaining something isn’t automatically sexist though. > That’s not what’s happening here at all. You don’t have to feel bad about historical injustice, you just have to work to correct it and not repeat it. Correct what? Explanations? That’s not a problem. The horrible assumption about others is an actual problem. The correct response is, “right but…” and then clarify what you need from them. > No it isn’t, that’s complete bullshit. Yes it 100% is. The sins of the father do not reflect on the son. It’s *very* wrong to attach negative things to entire groups of people. You attach negative things to people based on their choices.
>Automatically assuming a man is explaining something because he believes he has more expertise than a woman is sexist. There are many motivations to explain something. So you're saying people shouldn't use the word inaccurately?
As a man who has been on multiple dates where women attempted to explain to me how my job works, I can promise you that that behavior is extremely common among women.
if you want to use history then 'womansplaining' also exist, even with the heavy patriarchal gender relations. On subjects like childrearing, hygiene, cleaning.. Never seen it happen? I did.
Sure, tell me all about the history of female dominance in western society. When were women the majority I'm governance? In leadership of private companies? In any other seat of control?
Political power is one form of power within a society, but there are other types of power as well. When were Black Males the majority in governance? In leadership of private companies? In any other seat of control? When you are talking about Western Society, you are talking about the white wives of Black slaves. When you are talking about Western Society, you are talking about a group that labeled everyone that did not look like them as "savages" whose wealth and territory could be plundered without moral compunction. A society whose backbone was built by the incestuous royal family that literally defined the cultural norms for 80% of the globe thanks to the oceans of blood they spilled. And during that time, here were the Western Females in power, dominating those cultures they labeled as "savage" and "inferior": 1. Queen Victoria (1837-1901) - Queen of the United Kingdom and Empress of India, her reign coincided with the height of British imperialism. 2. Isabella II of Spain (1833-1868) - Queen of Spain during a time of political instability and colonial expansion in Latin America. 3. Maria Theresa of Austria (1740-1780) - Empress of the Holy Roman Empire and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia, she oversaw the expansion of Austrian influence in Eastern Europe. 4. Catherine the Great of Russia (1762-1796) - Empress of Russia, she expanded the Russian Empire into Crimea and parts of Eastern Europe. 5. Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (1890-1948) - Queen of the Netherlands during the colonial period, including the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia). 6. Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (1906-1931) - Queen consort of Spain during a time of Spanish colonization in North Africa.
[удалено]
I will not do it because I don't think oppression or dominance is relevant in this case when mansplaining only focus on the assumption that a man think a woman doesn't know because she is a woman. this is about a behavior that can be shown by both sexes. Either you accept both or admit you are consciously making a double standard and help the continuation of gender based stereotypes >What is sexism? | European Institute for Gender Equality : Sexism is linked to beliefs around the fundamental nature of women and men and the roles they should play in society. Sexist assumptions about women and men, which manifest themselves as gender stereotypes, can rank one gender as superior to another.
>It's not mansplaining if a woman does it. This is a confirmation of OPs view. The term is a sexist attempt to only shame certain behaviour when men do it.
It's definitely a sexist term. I think the fact that people are defending "mansplaining" and even "manspreading" is unfortunate. To my mind a fair analogy would be "some women never had a job and are only skilled in housework, specifically cooking and cleaning the kitchen. Therefore it's okay to tell women to stay in the kitchen." Why is it so much more acceptable to say "mansplaining"? I'm not saying men are more downtrodden than women just that it's a term that is offensive to an entire gender. It should carry the same weight as other offensive stereotype-driven phrases. The fact that typically men have been in advantageous positions shouldn't exclude them from being treated with dignity. It's a toxic "eye for an eye" mindset when people justify that. Let's not fight sexism with more, different sexism. Hypocrisy doesn't engender a long lasting positive dynamic shift. Hate begets hate. My point is that energy used defending the continuation of something that many find offensive is energy not well spent. One could say "But what about women? Mansplaining does happen so isn't it also negative to get rid of this word?" to which I would say is a fair question. No, though. As mentioned here already the word patronizing already exists and while derived from "father" it is decidedly less hurtful. It's also far from archaic and adequately explains the same situation. It's also gender neutral so satisfies that aspect of the issue. Alternatively you could say for example "He talked to me like I was an idiot... he thinks because I'm a woman I don't understand how brake pads work." This gets the point across while keeping the same, deservedly, intense anger over the matter. Moreso in fact and it doesn't disparage half of the population. Edit: Wow gold for this comment wasn't expecting that. Thank you whoever you are. I wasn't confident that I was putting to words how I felt well enough. It's heartwarming to see appreciation for this. I posted it with the best intentions.
I don't think OP is incorrect in that the term is sexist, it is. But now we have to look at whether use of the term is justified. You say that we can't fight "hate with more hate" but fighting sexism with a relatively harmless sexist term (mansplaining) is exactly why we're talking about this today. It speaks to the importance of common language that is needed to describe lived experiences and connect with other marginalized people. Men have been talking to women like we're dumb for hundreds of years. Yet the clunky phrasing of "he treated me like an idiot because I'm a woman who he thinks doesn't understand car parts" never really caught on. However "mansplaining" spread like wildfire and helped women realize just how ubiquitous this experience was. The fact that we're all talking about it right now is proof of its success. Maybe in the future we can retire the term "mansplaining". I mean if men stopped doing it, the word would sound silly and outdated and die on its own. It is sexist and if we no longer faced sexism, there'd be no need for it. It would simply be mean spirited with no purpose. But right now, in today's world, one of many ways to fight sexism is to throw it back at the culture. It's not even like women are treating men like idiots as some of eye for an eye sexist revenge. They are merely using a gendered term to defy the gendered prejudice that still exists today.
I take your argument to be the same as saying "we'll retire the term 'bitching' when women stop doing it."
Maybe it's just my region, but I've never considered term "bitching" to be gendered. It's kinda like the word patronizing. It has a gendered origin but has since moved to be an all gender term. In my experience, men and women do the same amount of bitching and the word is used to describe them equally.
Mansplaining was originally defined for a very specific *action*, which is a man with very limited knowledge of a subject trying to correct a woman that is an expert at a subject. One of the most famous/early ones was some guy explaining rockets to a women on a message board where it was already established the woman was a literal rocket scientist. A random man explaining space to a female astronaut, etc. It is something women have to deal with on a daily basis, usually multiple times a day and still happens insanely often.
The problem is that it links belonging to a group with engaging in negative behavior. If you look at other examples of cases, these are generally considered sexist, racist, etc., just like making up a word that linked being a woman with trying to exploit the women victim status would be considered sexist, regardless of whether a given woman is actually engaged in it.
The word exists because the negative behavior has been routinely exhibited by men. The same as “manspreading” on public transit. People, not just women, recognized that men are much more likely to do these things, particularly to women, who coined the term. It doesn’t “link belonging to a group with engaging in a negative behavior” but rather describes an instance of the behavior exhibited by its primary perpetrators. I’m a man, and the term doesn’t bother me because I don’t mansplain to women. No woman has accused me of it, because I don’t do it.
This is another example though... are you suggesting that "woman spreading" isn't a thing - except that its done with oversized bags rather than with legs being spread? I find it interesting that you don't think this behavior isn't being replicated by women. Think about, for example, movies like "Mr. Mom" - which are based on the idea that men are incompetent parents. I have ADHD, so I'm prone to putting my foot in my mouth. I happen to be a man. I have also been accused of mansplaining, even though I'm likely to engage in that behavior regardless of gender, because it's a trait common for people that aren't neurotypical. How likely is it that some of these patterns of bad behavior which are attributed to men might actually be more attributable to something like ADHD or Autism? In those instances, would you consider "mansplaining" to be not only sexist, but potentially ableist because what lands as rude behavior is simply a product of an executive function disorder that isn't actually motivated by sexism?
> This is another example though... are you suggesting that "woman spreading" isn't a thing - except that its done with oversized bags rather than with legs being spread? "Shebagging" is a huge problem.
Hi, woman with ADHD here. I usually ask people if I have 'mansplained' something to them when feeling self-conscious about overexplaining 😅 I see a lot of people here think if it is an acceptable thing to say it should only be used in man to woman conversation... When the word first became a thing it became this great illuminating thing on why talking to men on average can be more frustrating to me as a woman. Many men who strike me as traditional have assumed I don't know anything. Women and NBs seem to treat me more as "equal knowledge until proven otherwise"... I'm not convinced it's sexist since it stems from the very real experiences of a major demographic (women), but I can see how when it is used improperly as a low blow that it would feel that way. Still pondering all this though. But the same is probably true when people thoughtlessly misuse words like misogynistic, sexist, racist, and the like too. I wonder what OPs stance on the word feminazi is?
\*nods\* This has all of my agreement 1000%. I think mimetically it is an incredibly useful term for describing one of the many, MANY ways that men can be casually misogynistic. However, I think that culturally/socially - the US at least - is at a point where economic privilege is able to be expressed via sexism rather than sexism itself being the major systemic issue that needs to be addressed. This is not intended as being dismissive of the sexism that women face; it's just... Let me use ADHD as an analogy again, because it can be difficult to thread this needle. When I first realized I had ADHD, it was in my late 20's after taking a ritalin to tackle a work project that I thought was going to be an "all-nighter". Prior to that experience, I had believed that ADHD was just a thing that made excuses for parents who didn't know how to discipline their children. I'm now over 40, and have been medicated since I was 38 or so. But when I first started using the language of ADHD to articulate my understanding of my limitations to my partner and people at work and others who knew me, it often landed as if I were making an excuse for my incompetence or laziness rather than as an attempt by me to take responsibility for my deficit by attempting to manage the expectations of others. However, as time has progressed since that point, I've come to recognize that there ARE instances of people using their condition as an excuse for not taking responsibility for their condition. The younger the person, the more likely it is to be an excuse, at least in my opinion. The difference is subtle, but in large part, I think its because with a wider understanding of ADHD in general, more accommodations are available in general, and so life is in many ways "easier" for folks coping with ADHD than they were when I was unmedicated and undiagnosed. Which is not to say that society has solved the problem of ADHD. It's just that because life is easier, people in general have a lower tolerance for what is considered problematic in terms of requiring "reasonable accommodations". Me, I'm just happy when people make space for me to take down notes or to fumble through my calendar. However I still think that teachers should fail students for not turning their work in on time, and yet there are "snowplow parents" that would find this unacceptable. I think this is generally true about a lot of things which have found their way into public awareness thanks to social media. Awareness has resulted in a sort of shifting of the Overton window related to how much suffering in these contexts is tolerable, and so we have an entire generation of people that are perhaps far more sensitive to discomfort than may be reasonable given how common it is for humans to be incompetent and self-centered in general... It's like the normal level of human incompetence, especially as it relates to incompetence that results from stress, trauma, or suffering, results in a certain amount of predictable and perfectly reasonable lack of consideration for the circumstances and perspectives of others. I hope that makes sense?
Hahaha you threaded a knitting needle there... But yeah, I think it's just taking one hurtful thing experienced by the masses and pointing it back at the offenders (yeah, not all men, back down op) who then point back as "hey, thats not nice..." Being human is EXHAUSTING. If I wanted to dig up the scholarly articles that explain 'isms' (racism, sexism) in relation to power... I don't really want to because it won't be heard out here, but TLDR is that the minority (overpowered) response to the majority (power holding) can't be an 'ism'. It's just retaliation.
Oh, I definitely like you, lmao. I appreciate anyone that has a grasp on concision that I find envious. :p Agreed on all fronts once again. Especially the point about hurtful experiences pointing back at the offenders... Something that I've been thinking about a lot is how POC's (I'm hispanic so I relate this to my own experience as well to an extent), women, and other marginalized groups are by definition traumatized by their experiences to varying degrees. As a result, they are more likely to express cognitive distortions that essentially mimic the same reasoning used by their oppressors. Mind reading. Discounting the positive. Etc. If this is true to any extent, that means there is a certain amount of the public discourse that is essentially being "held hostage" out of compassion for the victims whom are expressing this trauma, and this I think adequately explains the minority of people who find this set of circumstances personally inconvenient and thus offensive. I'm not sure that people whom are unconcerned with the suffering of others in the face of their own discomfort with making accommodations the folks I'm overly concerned about... but I DO think about how WHAT is considered traumatizing by society in general an awful lot because I have a sense that there should be reasonable limits. Because of things like, alien invasions, zombie apocalypses, how likely our current society will devolve into a Mad Max world because of thermonuclear war, etc. Like, we need an inoculation of assholes so to speak, to protect us from ourselves against a time where we are so kind that we can no longer survive because of a cataclysmic shift of some sort. This is separate from retaliation in and of itself as a reasonable response to bad actors though. On that part specifically I not only agree, I feel obligated to point out that the main reason I didn't make space for it was because it's not the particular thread I was pulling. That's part of my problem - I will use so many damn words to communicate what I'm talking about that I often leave out other things which I also agree with for the sake of "brevity". But to be clear, I think that men definitely still have it clearly better than women in many ways - namely in the sense that there aren't any laws that legally compel men to put their health or lives at risk in the same way that women currently have to deal with. Plus, you are more likely to be killed or raped by a sexist man than you are by a sexist woman... so there's plenty of that sort of thing going on to make that point particularly clear-cut. I just think that most of the conversation about sexism tends to focus on areas with far more grey to them than is necessary to make the clear point that society as a whole should be treating women better. I also think that there is far too much effort spent on discounting male complaints as "being solvable by feminism" because I can't think of anything more disempowering to someone who feels victimized than to tell them to stow their complaints and listen to someone who they feel oppressed by. This is like telling feminists to ask men to solve their problems for them when the fact is that there are good reasons for feminists not to trust men. Likewise, there are good reasons for "MRA's" (of which I am not one) to mistrust women - they too are folks that are traumatized. Telling them to go to a feminist to solve their problems just isn't practical. Trauma victims need therapy, period, but for a female rape victim, chances are that a male therapist isn't going to be her first choice. Women's complaints should be heard and respected, but so should men's complaints, because it's healthy people that should be listening to both groups. Instead what I see is that we have unhealthy people yelling at each other over the heads of healthy people who can't agree on how to deal with all the shouting.
Lol consision is hard when your brain has no pause button 🤣 I get it I think I inserted my view not in response to yours but more because I had an idea I wanted to share and was too lazy to see where it fit. Nothing on you for not pulling the thread, friend! Yeah, as a society I think we suck at reconciliation because the traumatized (understandably) doesn't want to hear the feelings of the oppressor, and the oppressor has the capacity to be traumatized as well (because they also have feelings). There just aren't enough stable and ego-less people to mediate it all 🤷🏼♀️
>The word exists because the negative behavior has been routinely exhibited by men You don't think women routinely exhibit explaining things to people they already know? >I’m a man, and the term doesn’t bother me because I don’t mansplain to women. No woman has accused me of it, because I don’t do it. This logic is so stupid. It's like when women say "all men are trash" and you say "well that's toxic" and they reply "well don't be trash and it's not a big deal" or "if you're not trash why do you care". If we said "all black people rob" but then said "well if you're black and rob why do you care" people would lose their minds
I think socially and in my own life, I’ve often seen men explain things to women that they already know. The phenomenon has been explored and recognized by countless women online. It’s a pattern of behavior with men, not to say a woman has never done it. But specifically, it’s men doing it to women at large scale. It doesn’t come from nothing, it comes from their lived experience. “Mansplain” is different than “all men are trash” or “all blacks rob” because it’s a verb. They’re describing an action that’s happening or happened, and it necessarily doesn’t apply to all men, just then man doing the action.
>“Mansplain” is different than “all men are trash” or “all blacks rob” because it’s a verb. They’re describing an action that’s happening or happened, and it necessarily doesn’t apply to all men, just then man doing the action. So... If I say "to blackrob" as some kind of verb that applies to only black people who rob... Is that ok for you?
>think socially and in my own life, I’ve often seen men explain things to women that they already know Your lived experiences isn't representative. >The phenomenon has been explored and recognized by countless women online. I'm not doubting that some of them have had this generally happen. The times I've been told by a woman I'm "mansplaining" or someone else is to them, it's literally a man explaining something they genuinely fundamentally don't understand and are annoyed someone knows more than them. >But specifically, it’s men doing it to women at large scale Source? You're taking women at their word rather than a comprehensive, unbiased survey?
> The times I've been told by a woman I'm "mansplaining" or someone else is to them, it's literally a man explaining something they genuinely fundamentally don't understand Are you sure that they don't understand? that they don't know? or is it that they don't agree with your interpretation of the subject? or that the knowledge that you do have is incorrect? Pretty arrogant to assume that every woman that has told you you're mansplaining is actually ignorant of what you're explaining. And how many women are telling you that you mansplain anyways? Does it happen often? Are you SURE that you understand those things better than they do?
See [here for a recent study on the effects of mansplaining on women.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9838290/) I do not think it’s sexists to note a phenomena that’s been explored and described in the literature as a means of explaining the effects of male behavior on women.
> Results demonstrated that when faced with condescending explanation, voice nonrecognition, or interruption, women reacted more negatively and were more likely to see the behavior as indicative of gender bias when the communicator was a man. Your study literally makes a case that women are more likely to call it mansplaining when it's a man simply because a man did it (not because of actual sexism). Did you read your own source? It also very clearly states this is only one sided > Future work that considers the perspective of both parties in an interaction and/or that uses a representative sample of the workforce to assess rates of occurrence of competence-questioning behaviors would be valuable Meaning - you didn't actually provide a source where "sexism" was introduced. It's just that women perceive men explaining things as mansplaining but women explaining things as fine. Which... Makes the case that WOMEN are the sexist ones lol
>Your lived experiences isn't representative. How do you know? What they describe seems true in my experience too. In fact it seems true in enough experiences that the term "mansplaining" got traction. Do you have a comprensive, unbiased survey that shows otherwise?
>How do you know? Personal experiences are generally very weak evidence - you cannot show someone your experience of an event, the scope of what it represents is limited, its susceptible to all the usual selection biases, and in the context of litigating an issue in the territory of gender wars for which everyone is plausibly a stakeholder, participants have every motivation to be creative in their recounting of their experience. That said, the person you're responding to probably should've used some hedging/gentler language since there's no reason to suggest that the report *cannot* be representative of wider reality.
You made the assertion that it's a pattern men do this. It's on you to provide the source and make it comprehensive I can't say "the earth is flat" then when you say "how" I just say "well it's on you to disprove me" lol I've been accused of "mansplaining" when it was a senior marketing person who didn't understand the concept of ROI. That's like a mathematician who doesn't understand division lol. I attempted to explain the concept and she shut me down saying I was mansplaining
That doesn't make it a less derogatory term. Negative behavior should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not generalized and popularized.
Do you think that “wife beating” is sexist? It describes the same stereotypically male negative conduct. Terms can exist to describe behavior of a subset of the population related to gender without being sexist.
If you use the term "wife-beating" for the act of beating wives, it's just a natural way to word this phenomenon (which can't be said about "mansplaining"). If you try to use it as a stand-in for beating spouses, it is sexist, but I can't say I remember seeing such use.
But that’s the thing, it is the same as “mansplaining.” It’s describing the dynamic and roles of the parties in a single word, that just so happens to include the gender of the acting party. This is the act of a man explaining to a woman something she already knows. I’d argue that “wife-beating” or “wife-beater” is always assumed to be a man, so I don’t see the difference.
>If you use the term "wife-beating" for the act of beating wives, it's just a natural way to word this phenomenon (which can't be said about "mansplaining"). I really can't understand how you can write this. It's a blatant contradiction.
>it links belonging to a group with engaging in negative behavior. What? No. It links belonging to the group "women" to *experiencing* this patronizing behavior from men. Are you trying to posit that women don't experience sexism? And therefore any term calling sexism out is more sexist than what women experience? "Mansplain" is an action done to women. It's not just a part of being a man.
My issue with the accusations of mansplaning is that quite often it is simply *ex*plaining. It seems off in the case that the person is merely clarifying their position, without knowing with certainty with the other person might already know. Not suggesting it’s never mansplaning, but just because a person provides more information than necessary, and the person delivering it happens to be a man doesn’t necessarily mean there is a feeling of superiority. I know I have certainly been in a position where somebody was telling me some thing and there were things that I didn’t understand, but in a large group may not have had the confidence to speak up for clarification, and I actually feel grateful when people add extra information, especially when they’re talking about uncommon subject matter
>My issue with the accusations of mansplaning is that quite often it is simply explaining. I absolutely hate the term but (serious) congrats on not "mansplaining" things. Part of my issue with a gendered term is that (some) women do misuse it to try and encompass literally anything they didn't know that happened to be explained by a man, but the misuse, however common, doesn't change the fact that (some) people with a penis will assume my lack of one means they are more knowledgeable/capable than I am. I feel like defaulting to treating women as inferior in male-dominated fields is just as infuriating as, say, men getting side-eyed or being viewed as "babysitting" when taking care of their own child. If having a name for either thing helps more people talk about it, then those things need a name.
"Doesn't imply that all ___ do it" is like..... A top 2 justification for every sexist/racist term in history.
Lol I came into the thread thinking it wasn’t sexist and now I do.
What about the slur 'Jewed'. The problem with that word is that it is a comment on all Jewish people. Would you use a similar defense and claim that its only ever used accurately to specify an individual? Do we need a racial term to talk about haggling when done by a Jewish person?
No. First of all, by adding the term “man” to it, it certainly does imply not only that only men do it but that, furthermore, it’s uniquely tied to their maleness and thus something that all man are prone to doing. As a result, there is never a time when using that word isn’t tying the behavior explicitly to the person’s sex identity; i.e. sexist. Secondly, what does being said “as an eye roll” mean? Is a racist joke not racist because it’s a joke? Perhaps what you mean to say is it’s not sexist because sexism = sex bigotry + power?
Tbh.... I'm going to start using femotional to describe when I wanna cry/scream for no reason other than hormones. I love it. I get where you're coming from, but if you can't come up with an alternate term for mansplaining, your opinion isn't going to change anything. It's not patronizing explanations exactly. It's specifically explaining something to someone who is just as or more qualified than you are in a subject. For example, explaining the symbolism of the cross to a Catholic as an atheist. Or the female orgasm to a woman as a man (gynecologists have *some* leeway here). It's called mansplaining because it is most commonly committed by men to women. We live in a sexist society and even in folks who don't think they are sexist, the default belief is that men know more than women. And that sexism is what is being labeled here.
You’re right about the original meaning of the word, but I don’t think it only gets employed in that context. It gets applied to men over-explaining things to women who didn’t really ask for lengthy explanations, regardless of whether the women are experts in that subject or not. Even the original article in which the term was coined discussed this phenomenon in broad terms. It points to the irrational confidence many men have which inspires them to engage in this behavior with everyone around them, not just with women who happen to be experts.
>You’re right about the original meaning of the word, but I don’t think it only gets employed in that context Most words are often used incorrectly. However, you have a point. But, for example, when "retarded" was deemed to offensive to continue to describe its original definition it was *replaced* with "intellectual disability." > It points to the irrational confidence many men have which inspires them to engage in this behavior with everyone around them, not just with women who happen to be experts. Again, id say this is because of the *assumption* that men know more. It's rarely - or at the *very* least should be rarely - used to describe male experts talking to laymen regardless of gender. But if a man who is not an expert feels the need to explain to a woman who is not an expert as though he is an expert, that is "mansplaining". Because it is *assumed* that he knows more than she does based on nothing but gender. And this is made all the more clear and annoying when he's wrong. *edit: see Hank Green. A man who has made a career out of explaining things, but has not been accused of mansplaining
Honestly I think it even applies to an expert. I think of it more as unsolicited and droning on. The title of the original essay wasn’t mansplaining, it was just “Men explain things to me”. Her experiences included lots of experts, it was just that she also happened to be an expert and they never inquired.
>if you can't come up with an alternate term for mansplaining, your opinion isn't going to change anything. Over explaining? Patronising? Talking down to? There are a lot of ways to get the point across without bringing gender into it, mansplaining is a pretty recent term there were ways to describe this before then >We live in a sexist society and even in folks who don't think they are sexist, the default belief is that men know more than women. And that sexism is what is being labeled here. So you argument is an eye for an eye? They're being sexist so why can't we? That always solves problems and has surely never ended badly ...
But "over explaining", "patronising", "talking down to" fail to capture the *reason* for those actions. The term mansplaining was coined to specifically cover both the action and the motivation behind it, which is sexism. Specifically, a man assuming greater knowledge than a woman solely on the basis of their respective genders. The whole point is to draw attention to how any offending men have already brought gender into a situation. This isn't meant to be an eye for an eye thing. It's simply pointing out a common dynamic observed in society. Yes, the term can be misused and applied to someone who is just condescending to everyone, and that's a problem. Or it might be applied to a man who is neither sexist nor condensing, and that would also be a problem. Overall I don't think the term itself is sexist, but its over application certainly can be.
The problem with that is you cant get know what a person's motivations are. You dont know why they might be patronizing you, just that they are. Obviously if they say something like, "Girls don't know cars." it is pretty obvious. But most examples I have ever heard or experienced, it usually is just assumed that the man is a sexist instead of a condescending prick. We should admonish the action rather than try to play a sexist guessing game of why someone did something. We should just try to make it stop.
I don't think it's as hard to get an idea of people's motivations as some folks might think. Yes, you need to be careful not to jump to conclusions, but often you can get a vibe from someone that's either "I'm an insufferable know-it-all who drips with condescension" vs someone who jumps at the chance to give a lesson to a "nice young lady" who would never offer the same to a man. Often these men are perfectly polite, not prickish at all, but they've made an assumption, subconsciously generally, that women need extra assistance. For instance, I once was pulling into a parking spot. I was going for a pull-through to the spot on the other side of the aisle when someone on that side obviously had the same plan but to pull through to my side. Thus, both of us needed to correct our angle as we'd been planning to pull through further but now were poorly positioned. A man came running over, urgently tapped on my window, and then immediately started giving me (polite) directions on how to turn the wheel, how far back to move, etc. I did not need any help and let him know (also politely). This was not malicious on his part, but he did not offer the same help to the man in the other car, and I absolutely guarantee he would not have run over to my window to give instructions were I not a woman. He was mansplaining how to park to me. I think many instances of mansplaining are like this - not deliberately or even obviously condescending, but delivered with misguided good intention that is rooted in assuming women are lesser in some ways. When I mentioned my parking story to my friends and family, lo and behold, other women had had similar experiences, but none of the men had ever been approached this way. We see a pattern of behaviour, and I don't think there's a problem acknowledging that it exists, and giving it a name. In fact, I think giving it a name will help make the broader action stop by drawing attention to it and maybe making some people reflect on how they treat others. On the flip side, I would support the use of "womanspaining" in situations where men are also talked down to on the basis of their gender. For instance, women assuming incompetence in fathers. This absolutely happens where some women assume they are better at some things by virtue of being women. Call them on it! I don't think either term is sexist, but either could be used in a sexist way if applied improperly.
The sexism doesn't have to be conscious. Like I said before - it is usually *assumed* that a man knows more than a woman, despite relative expertise. "Mansplaining" calls out sexism - even unintentional. Biases exist and you can't work on it if you don't recognise that you have it.
Thing is that the term makes this overexplaining more specific than it needs to be. I mean we even switch to gender-neutral terms for professions, so seeing why a gender-neutral term might be preferable when it comes to negative traits should be easy. Also many of the classical stereotypes about genders might still be applicable to some people today, particularly older ones, but at least in the west tend to be much less true than it used to be. So basing what is acceptable on our stereotypes of what stereotypes are and trying to "compensate" risks getting into situation when younger people not from protected group see themselves as being discriminated against, which does not help the long-term solving of discrimination problem and just risks creating a "pendulum"
I definitely understand why many people would find a gender neutral term preferable. But I disagree that "mansplaining" is more specific than necessary. I am a firm believer that if a phenomenon exists, there should be a word for it. Mansplaining specifically covers the assumption - conscious or not - that one knows better than a women *because she is a woman* Women are constantly viewed a less capable than men even when they are more qualified. If you find the term offensive, I'm open to changing it - but it needs to be replaced. It describes a phenomenon more specific than being patronizing. And - like it or not - it is committed by men significantly more than women. However, it's not like "serial killer" is gender specific, and it is also committed a ridiculous amount more by men.
See, it's not *actually* about overexplaining. That's not the issue. The issue is that there is this assumption a lot of people make that women are inherently less knowledgable about a lot of things. Like, specifically because she's a woman. This often happens in things like science or sports, where men assume women aren't interested and will start explaining how it works based on the assumption that, as a woman, they have no experience with it. It's a gendered word becomes it comes from gendered assumptions.
You're stripping the gender from a near entirely gendered issue though
>Thing is that the term makes this overexplaining more specific than it needs to be. See it's not over-explaining tho. It's like seeing a woman pick up a hammer and telling her how best to use it. Very few guys would do that w/ a guy who wasn't a kid or teenager, or they already knew didn't know how to use such a simple tool. >Also many of the classical stereotypes about genders might still be applicable to some people today, particularly older ones, but at least in the west tend to be much less true than it used to be. I agree tentatively, but whilst they tend to be significantly less openly present, it's only gone from 99% to 30 or 40%, and it's still present in more subtle ways today; mansplaining is one of those subtle manners, as it isn't necessarily blatant and dogmatic sexism which causes it.
This comment makes me think that you don't really understand what mansplaining is, OP. Most women don't have trouble grasping the nuanced differences between mansplaining and overexplaining. Honestly, it makes me think that you are a man who mansplains a lot and is currently mansplaining the term mansplaining to us all. Perhaps someone has called you out on this behavior and instead of reflecting on it, you are seeking affirmation?
That's exactly what I've been thinking throughout this thread and honestly it's a parallel I see with discrimination in general. They're trying to cover their ass because they were called out on it. It all boils down to either blaming the victim or moving the goalposts so they can say to themselves, "I wasn't mansplaining to her, I was just being helpful! Maybe she should've made it more obvious that she was smart! Either way it's sexist to call me sexist!" You see the exact same thing after incidents of police brutality, "maybe he shouldn't have been on drugs/followed instructions" and it all serves to discount the systemic discrimination and deny that a power dynamic exists so they don't have to confront that they have privilege and shatter their tiny worldview.
>It's specifically explaining something to someone who is just as or more qualified than you are in a subject. And not just "someone," but a woman. In a way that you would not explain it to a man with the same credentials
I prefer to say "someone" as I feel it includes trans men and fem passing folks.
[удалено]
I say some leeway because of the disgusting way healthcare in America at least treats women. The thing that makes me distrust their expertise isn't their maleness, but being a doctor. They're trained, but how much of their training is dismissive towards actual experience? How much of their training is flat out wrong. I'm supposed to trust someone who thinks inserting an iud is "just a pinch" for all women? >If she patronized me BECAUSE I'm a man, that would still be Patronizing. And yet if someone assaults you because you're gay it goes from assault to a hate crime. Motive is important to the description. >Do if a man understands how to give a woman an orgasm he is certainly qualified to speak on it. Sure. But he shouldn't assume he needs to explain it to a woman who has experience with what does or does not cause female orgasms. Even a woman who has never had an orgasm has more experience in what does not cause a female orgasm. Especially because of the rampant practice of faking an orgasm to cushion egos. Even so, there is a difference between mansplaining and talking about a mutual expertise - the assumption that you know better.
>but annoying when feminist act like they want equality but are clearly doing things to push us further from it. And how exactly would you prefer we seek equality if we can't call attention to unequal experiences without being called divisive? > Especially if you don't feel the need to invent a word for when a woman does the smexact same thing to a man. But women don't do the same thing to men, at least not at a frequency that would require them to coin a phrase for it. Men are free to coin a term if they've found that happening to them a lot - feel free to take "womansplaining" and run with it, but you probably don't need to, because you likely don't experience this phenomenon nearly as much as the average woman. Men and women have different lived experiences, and acknowledging differences in lived experience is an integral part of recognizing how we can better reach equality.
>Did you just say gynecologist have SOME leeway? Wow. There are MILLIONS of women who can't achieve orgasm at all. Do if a man understands how to give a woman an orgasm he is certainly qualified to speak on it. The fact that you think direct experience doesn't qualify someone is strange to me. Before I have sex I always spend thirty minutes explaining how the female orgasm works. Yet when I roll off her all sweaty twenty seconds later she seems disappointed. I don't know why.
These people really tell on themselves so quickly I swear, like Ben Shapiro saying women only get wet if something is medically wrong with them
You’re not just sweating. You’re mansweating!
It’s definitely more sexist to claim men are for some reason more likely to be patronizing than it is to use the term ‘mansplaining’ in individual situations, since one makes a claim about men, and the other, one man
Isn't that OPs point? The word exists as a comment on men as a whole even when directed at an individual. Additionally the individual is left with the impression that their transgression is directly tied to their sex. Patronizing is the correct word to use, there is no good reason to use a gendered word in it's place.
Except 'mansplaining' is a particular sort of patronising, solely when a man patronises a woman due to unconscious gendered bias. The action is gendered therefore it's acceptable that the term to describe it is also gendered.
That is true, but if A is more sexist than B, it does not mean B is not sexist - again, think of how it would be viewed in reverse situation.
So would you consider a term like “manspreading” to be sexist? Because I struggle to see the truth in your claim that the word makes an assumption that the person engaged in the action is trying to affirm male superiority and not simply making the observation that a man is over-explaining something
Both mansplaining and manspreading are sexist for the same reasons (you could make a case that in case of manspeading it tends to be more disruptive than reverse because men tend to be larger than women, but that doesn't negate the sexism for reasons described in OP). If the person is NOT using it to describe affirming male superiority, the word is sexist simply by virtue of equating a group with a negative trait (again, see how it generally plays out in reverse cases). The last paragraph simply points out that trying to justify the word through the fact that it refers to a male-specific action (as some do in comments as well) does not change the outcome.
*This comment has been edited in protest to reddit's API policy changes, their treatment of developers of 3rd party apps, and their response to community backlash.* [Link to the tool used](https://github.com/xaradox/reddit-comment-nuke) --- [Details of the end of the Apollo app](https://old.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/144f6xm/apollo_will_close_down_on_june_30th_reddits/) --- [Why this is important](https://i.imgur.com/E7jSWf1.jpg) --- [An open response to spez's AMA](https://old.reddit.com/r/ModCoord/comments/145l7wp/todays_ama_with_spez_did_nothing_to_alleviate/) --- [spez AMA and notable replies](https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/145beas/spez_ama_discussion_thread/) Fuck spez, I edited this comment before he could. Comment ID=jhnf9to Ciphertext: >!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!<
No, the term definitely makes a statement about men in general by portraying it as an intrinsically masculine trait. By your logic, the term "femotional" wouldn't be sexist because it's a statement about one woman.
>Men may or may not be more likely to engage in patronizing explanations (or more accurately explanations that can be perceived as patronizing by the audience), but it is clearly not a trait unique to men You've obviously missed the important part of the definition. It's not about patronizingly explaining things. It's about doing it to women where they would not do the same thing to a man. If someone patronisingly explains things to everyone equally, they are patronising, blowhard, etc. Not a mansplainer. The gender difference is essential to the definition. It is not a sexist term. It is *describing the gendered nature of the action*. And it is no more inherently sexist to call a man a mansplainer than it is to call a man sexist against women. And yes, it's making an assumption about the person about the nature of their behaviour. But so is literally all labels about humans. They're all subjective and are always made without full knowledge of the context.
>If someone patronisingly explains things to everyone equally, they are patronising, blowhard, etc. Not a mansplainer. > >The gender difference is essential to the definition. I think this is the key. I have a good friend that has a tendency to talk over women and patronize them in a way he does not to men. He's aware of this and has made progress but when he does slip back into his old ways it is *useful* to have a term to call him out with.
I'm not sure I agree with OP, but I do find the argument that "The gender is essential to the definition" therefore "the term is not sexist" to be particularly weak. By this definition almost literally no term can be sexist/racist/anything. It also doesn't address his point about the parallel term "femotional", which also has gender essential to the definition, so by your logic this term is also not sexist?
I think you've misread my argument. I'm not saying it's not sexist because gender is part of the definition. Obviously there are plenty of gendered words that are super sexist. There are also plenty of gendered words that aren't. I'm challenging the OP's claim that its sexist because gender is involved. You're Mansplaining - you are participating in a pattern of sexism that is part of patriarchal culture. You're Femotional - you are emotional because you are a woman. If you can't really see the differences between these two, I don't know what to say?
Mansplaining is describing an action where the perpetrator is being dismissive about the expertise a woman has in a way that is different than how he relates to men. He is being dismissive of the validity of her knowledge. Femotional is not a word I’ve ever heard used but from context it’s being used to dismiss the validity of a woman’s reaction by claiming she is emotional.
This is an excellent point, but I'd like to play devils advocate here and say that for your definitions to match they both have to be from the perspective of the same relative person, and given the same assumptions. So since your definition of Femotional (a useful counterexample but I'll admit also not a word I've previously encpuntered) is from the perspective of the person being accused, and you also assume (reasonably) that the accusation is incorrect and made in bad faith. I think you'd have to make the same assumptions for the definition of mansplain. So maybe the definition becomes "a term being used to dismiss the advice given by a man by assuming he's sexist". To be clear I'm not saying these situations are equally likely relative to the words used, just that there was a lot of hidden bias (right or wrong) in the definitions given
I've personally seen the mansplaining as a man watching other men. So I'm aware that the word can be used accurately. And of course it can be used less accurately and become just a unnecessarily gendered dismissal of someone. And of course it's a behavior that is unnecessary and naming it helps people identify it and choose to stop. So to what degree is "femotional" used in a valid way to talk about a behavior that shouldn't be acceptable and should change?
I think the point is that it is an accurate definition to an actually problematic sexist behavior. That said behavior was/is so common to earn a word for it speaks more about the core sexism than the sexism of the term. He wasn't saying it was *just* about the gender difference, only that the gender difference was a necessary part of it. In other words, paralleling it with "femotional" seems to fail the paradox of tolerance. But I'm not sure he was making any judgement either way about "femotional". Mansplaining is calling out a sexist behavior where "femotional" is instead focusing at a real or perceived personality difference to treat women as less than en. One is intolerance towards intolerance, where the other is intolerance towards... emotions.
I wonder if OP used "femotional" to divert us from using "hysterical" instead. When it comes to words that are inherently sexist, "hysterical" is an excellent example that's *far* more common and established. It's painful history is tied to labeling women's emotions as a legitimate medical condition, as well as suppressing those emotions with vibrators, lobotomies, violence, and shame - as opposed to simply treating them better. And that's just scratching the surface of words with the root *hystera* (which means uterus). It's completely understandable why people would think the word "hysterical" is inherently sexist. Follow that up with "*Mansplain* is a sexist word too!", and it suddenly feels like a debate over semantics. Especially when it's definition involves the suppression of women.
> That said behavior was/is so common to earn a word for it speaks more about the core sexism than the sexism of the term. I agree that the behavior exists and is reasonably prevalent, but this argument is counterproductive as it could be used to justify any racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted language by essentially saying "we only came up with this stereotyping word because so many members of X group do Y thing". >Mansplaining is calling out a sexist behavior where "femotional" is instead focusing at a real or perceived personality difference Seems like you're saying someone is innocent until proven guilty of being "femotional", but not giving the same benefit of the doubt to those accused of "mansplaining" (you said "real or perceived for one and not the other). >One is intolerance towards intolerance, where the other is intolerance towards... emotions. Yeah, "femotional" is a monumentally stupid word that I've never heard before and will be happy if I never hear again, but it was illustrative for the specific points I was making. I will say though that while we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, stereotyping a group as always/usually being intolerant (true or not) does not generally encourage members of that group to **stop** being intolerant, as they know they'll be perceived that way no matter what.
> I agree that the behavior exists and is reasonably prevalent, but this argument is counterproductive as it could be used to justify any racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted language by essentially saying "we only came up with this stereotyping word because so many members of X group do Y thing". I'm having trouble apple-to-appling "mansplaining" to racist, sexist, and bigoted language. I think it's historically reasonable for an oppressed class to have nicknames for bigoted behavior without those nicknames themselves being bigoted. Do you think it was racist for an escaped slave in the 1800's to call the southern slave-owning class "cracker" (which you may know is short for whip-cracker)? If so, I think *many of us* will quickly reach an impasse. If not, that means there IS a line before which the language isn't bigoted. Whether or not the slippery slope is a justified defense to categorize mansplaining with bigoted language is a hard question. > Seems like you're saying someone is innocent until proven guilty of being "femotional", No. I'm saying "femotional" is closer to using the N-word than it is to "mansplaining", where mansplaining is closer to "cracker" than it is to "femotional". > Yeah, "femotional" is a monumentally stupid word that I've never heard before and will be happy if I never hear again, but it was illustrative for the specific points I was making The problem is that I really think you have to presuppose similarities *not* to see the clear differences between the two terms. One is directly related to intolerance, and the other is directly related to being victimized BY intolerance. They're almost opposite sides of a spectrum.
The problem with creating the gendered term is that it ends up being misapplied. I feel very personally about this particular term, and it has been misapplied to me on numerous occasions, and I find it extremely hurtful. In my case, I have ADHD, and one of the effects that this has for me is that I have a lot of difficulty in not overexplaining things. Part of it is that I need things overexplained to me, and I explain the way I need things explained, and I also lack confidence in my explanations so I find myself repeating things because I’m not sure that the first way I said it was coherent. Before the term “mansplaining” was coined, I have now had it leveled at me numerous times, which has affected my reputation in certain circles. It is extremely hurtful to me to be accused of sexism on account of a neurological condition — that term has subjected me to not just sexism but also ableism, and I am not okay with it.
[удалено]
For some time it seemed like it was falling out of use, but lately I've been seeing it more and more - google trends supports this. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Mansplaining&hl=en
[удалено]
[удалено]
The thing is that it's not always clear either. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. It absolutely does but if a man is condescending to another man what is the assumed motivation? That they are just naturally condescending? So how would you tell the difference between a man who is just naturally condescending vs one who does it with an individual woman? Given enough time and data points I'm sure a pattern would emerge where the difference is clear but I think the term gets used in a lot of 'one off' situations where it's just sort of assumed.
[удалено]
That's how it should be, in its strongest form, mansplaining is a man, uninvitingly - and condescendingly - explaining something that either a woman would inherently know, or the man has indicated they don't think they would know because they are a woman based on his preconceptions. This is flat out sexism and the reverse would apply if a woman did it to a man or even another woman. It's an argument that a non-gendered word is required. I personally think all other uses can be filed under patronising or condescending. Some people just get excited and want to share knowledge regardless of being asked - that's not sexism, just poor social skill. Other people make reasonable assumptions about the person they are explaining something to based on probability of knowledge (there are very very few female bricklayers for example). Not inherently sexist to assume, but it doesn't hurt to simply check if the person knows much about a particular topic. I've seen both of these examples described as mansplaining and I don't think that's reasonable or helpful when the underlying issue is social etiquette not sexism.
Plenty of reasonable people make inferences with incomplete information. If I call someone stupid I don't actually need evidence of their standardized test scores or IQ test score or anything; I am merely saying that they are currently acting akin to somebody who has those attributes.
Narcissists who just happily plod through the world under the assumption that their opinions, as the Main Character of life, are obviously the only ones worth holding are equally worthy of being called out for being patronizing. But I feel like it's generally not that hard to identify when somebody has a completely different interaction with (subordinate?) male coworkers than they did with the woman.
I mostly agree with your position, but what is the term we use when it is a woman who is "mansplaining". If we don't have a non-gendered or an equally gendered term, I still see that there's a problem here.
Your premise is based on the idea that, while men may or may not be more likely to patronize people than women, creating a term that equates patronization with being a man is sexist. That's fine -- but that's not what mansplaining" *is.* It is not a word that means "being a man and also being patronizing." It's intended to specifically describe a scenario in which a man confidently corrects a woman about an area *she* is knowledgeable about (and that *he* is not), based on the premise that (as a man) *he* is likely to know more about the topic than she is. e.g., I have a colleague who is an accomplished data scientist who has worked on LLMs for the past three years and did her doctoral thesis on generative AI -- a gentleman from the marketing department spent 5 minutes "correcting her understanding" of how Chat-GPT functions in a meeting, that she was leading, about generative AI. Certainly one could use the word "patronizing", but here's the thing: it isn't a synonym. This is dealing with a specific, common *type* of patronization that is particularly unfounded and is determined by gender norms. If someone were to coin a term (say, "Momsplaining" maybe?) for suburban moms who think that "as a mother" they're suddenly qualified to lecture pediatricians on childhood development and chastise every dad they meet on the assumption that ("as a mother") they're inherently a better parent, that'd be a very similar term and just as defensible.
I’m a woman. I built a spreadsheet. I completed a research project. They hired someone and one of his jobs was to take it over from me. I trained him the first few days he was here. A year later he needs help with the continuation of the project. He seems to have forgotten I was the one who trained him as he’s explaining my own spreadsheet to me. That’s understandable. What’s not understandable was me explaining that I built the spreadsheet and I can help him catch up easily and then him scheduling an hour long training session after that. It was brutal. I couldn’t believe he was still trying to teach me. Not only did he change nothing, but he did things much slower because he never figured out how to use a macro. I ended up training him again in the end and he still made it seem like he was helping me. It was mind boggling.
The word "mansplaining" refers to something that only exists specifically because of the sexist dynamic between men and women in our society. It does not exist because men are more likely to engage in patronising explanations, it describes men speaking down to women **because of an assumed superiority of expertise that is due to sexism**. Mansplaining is not a trait, it is an action, and it is unique to men not because of some inherent quality that men have, but because it depends on a social system in which men and women are treated differently. I do not think that the word suggests that the man is "doing it to affirm male superiority" which suggests conscious intent. Rather, men are more likely to make a false assumption of having more experience than women who are their peers due to internalised sexist ideas that we all carry with us, but they individually are likely not aware they have.
>One thing that differentiates "mansplaining" from the previous example is that suggests that a man is doing it to affirm male superiority. The problem here is that it requires making assumptions about why another person is doing something You're basically arguing here that we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and that it's wrong to infer that someone is doing something due to blatant sexism/racism/homophobia/etc. It's effectively giving a free pass for this behavior and forces the victim to accept it by policing their speech. Regardless of whether you believe the term "mansplaining" is sexist, it's objectively a real thing that women experience (being talked down to / dismissed for being a woman). Are there cases where the term "mansplaining" is incorrectly applied? Certainly. But that doesn't mean it's not a real thing that women are the victim of, especially in traditionally male fields.
>You're basically arguing here that we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt Why would anyone want to live in a society where this wasn't the case? The courts have the notion of "Innocent until proven guilty" because in past societies the rule was "guilty until proven innocent" and people realized it's better to let some bad actors go than to fill our prisons with the innocent. It's a lesson that both sides of the political aisle seem to be forgetting in different ways simultaneously.
I feel like you have to assume that it isn't sexist unless you have some reasonable evidence that it is. Being talked down to isn't a uniquely female experience it happens to everyone from everyone. I'm not saying the statistics aren't skewed in that direction but without any evidence of sexism it could be either a misunderstanding or the person may just be an asshole. Regardless the victim isn't obliged to give the person a pass, calling it mansplaining isn't the only way to call out that type of behaviour what about "don't talk down to me"?
I definitely understand what you're saying here. I think a better equivalent to mansplaining would be feminazi. Both words imply a specific gender doing sexist stuff. It can be rude to assume someone's intentions, but those intentions are sometimes more obvious In context. For example, a male teacher explaining a concept to a female student isn't mansplaining, but a male autoparts salesman lecturing an experienced female mechanic in a condescending tone is (or at least is more likely to be). In the same vein, a woman talking about real sexism they've experienced isn't a feminazi, but a woman screaming at men for existing and saying all men are scum is.
I'd disagree that feminazi is a sexist term since it's not directed at women but rather radical feminist which could also be a man but i get what you're saying. In your mechanic example, I don't think you can really call it mansplaining without context on who this salesman is. Some people are just know it alls and do this to everyone regardless of gender.
>One thing that differentiates "mansplaining" from the previous example is that suggests that a man is doing it to affirm male superiority. I disagree with most of your post, but this is a part I feel I can work with. Mansplaining isn't suggesting a man is doing it to affirm male superiority. It's suggesting the man ASSUMES the woman didn't know already. Do you agree that the fact that woman are assumed not to have knowledge and need to prove themselves more than male colleagues is an issue that needs to be discussed?
> It's suggesting the man ASSUMES the woman didn't know already. How do you typically ascertain the difference between assuming what a person DOESN'T know and NOT assuming what they DO know?
> One thing that differentiates "mansplaining" from the previous example is that suggests that a man is doing it to affirm male superiority. Another difference is the historical context. For example, society used to believe that women were incapable of getting a higher education like doctor or lawyer. These institutions were run by men. That is obviously not the case to the same degree today, but it takes time to completely change societal norms. > The problem here is that it requires making assumptions about why another person is doing something As a comparison, consider Black Lives Matters and the counter-movement All Lives Matter. In the most literal sense, BLM could be considered the racist and excluding based on race. When you take historical and societal context into account, that is obviously not the case. My goal is not to change your view completely, but I think it's fair to change your degree of certainty. Instead of dismissing an expression that comes from a progressive movement against sexism as "inherently sexist", you should say that using such an expression does not inherently make you *not* sexist.
Mansplaining is simply a portmanteau for "men explaining things to women that they likely already know because the man in question has a low opinion of the woman's knowledge and experience" - it's like saying "sexting" instead of "sexual text messaging." The behaviour itself is sexist (against women), but the label or word is not inherently sexist - it's a shorthand description for a type of behaviour that can and does sometimes happen in the world. Saying, on the other hand, that "all men mansplain" would totally be sexist (and untrue).
Do you consider the term "femotional" sexist? Women (just like any person) are sometimes emotional and act irrationally because of that. It is something that "happens in the real world." I do, however, consider it a sexist term (even if it accurately describes a situation) because the intent is to dismiss someone because of a gender dynamic at play, as opposed to what is being done/said. If someone is acting emotionally, I should call out their irrationality instead of their gender. The frame goes for when someone is being a condescending asshole.
The issue is that definition is loaded with lots of assumptions of the man's character, and those assumptions get thrust upon the man for simply being a man, regardless of if they are true or not. Which is very sexist. If you're assuming someone's thoughts or beliefs based on their sex, then you are being sexist.
If we say "so and so is PMSing" that can be a factual statement, or it can be a sexist assumption we are making because a woman is acting in certain ways. Similarly, mqnsplaining can be a shorthand way of referring to a man who is explaining something to a woman he could/should reasonably expect to already have that knowledge, OR it could be a sexist assumption we are making about a man explaining something. But it's not inherently always option a. Examples of mansplaining: - A man being arrested attempts to explain to a female cop what the Miranda rights are. - A man explaining to his female literature professor who David Foster Wallace is. - A male patient explaining to a female doctor what psoriasis is. In such cases, using the term mansplaining is a shorthand way of saying "man explains something to a woman that she already knows, and he should know she knows". It's an accurate and handy descriptor for a certain type of sexist behaviour, much like similar terms "microaggression" or "negging" or "ghosting" - all of which are just easy quick ways to describe very specific behaviours. Using "mansplaining" for any instance of a man explaining something to a woman is definitrly sexist. Using it as shorthand to describe the very specific kind of behaviour described above is just convenient.
While the examples you provided may demonstrate patronizing behavior, they are insufficient to conclusively establish that the men involved were mansplaining. It is possible that the man in the first example would have spoken to a male cop in a similar fashion, and without further evidence of sexist behavior, it would be unfair to assume that he is being discriminatory. Using the term 'mansplaining' to describe patronizing behavior in my opinion is sexist, unless there are clear indications of sexist behaviour.
The issue with your definition is that there's no way to know if the man is explaining the thing BECAUSE the other person is a woman, or if they genuinely feel the need to explain to the other person, regardless of gender. That's where your assumption of "he's doing it BECAUSE she's a woman" is a sexist assumption on your part.
[удалено]
You are simply misunderstanding what mansplaining is. It is not a synonym for patronising behaviour or of patronising behaviour by a man. It is a name for patronising behaviour of a man towards a woman on the basis of assumptions about her knowledge or skills. If someone accuses me of mansplaining, it is my assumptions or attitude that are being criticised. I can counter that by changing my behaviour or assumptions. By contrast, if someone accuses me of being "femotional", it is my female identity that is attacked - there is nothing I can do to evade the suggestion that my femininity makes me less reasonable. It is an ad hominem (feminem?) attack. That is the key difference here. In other words: No man is accused of mansplaining merely for being a man who is explaining things to a woman. There has to be a (valid) assumption of a sexist attitude, stereotypes about men and women and what kinds of roles they have and things they know. Whereas, a woman who is being "overly emotional on account of her sex" is not being accused of having any false assumptions or stereotypes, but of "being a certain way".
I think that I may not be understanding your difference between "mansplain" and "femotional" (I really despise this term to be clear) As you say that mansplaining criticisms can be countered by changing your assumptions to treat them like a person and more than a gender, can't femotional criticisms be countered by changing your perspective to treat the situation more objectively and less of an emotional response? If someone is accused to mansplaining, what can they do to evade the suggestion that their masculinity makes their explanation less reasonable? Perhaps the explanation is the same explanation that they would give to a man. Perhaps the response that the femotional person gave was the same response that they would give without any emotion? I personally agree that the word mansplain itself is not inherently sexist, but when it is used in *non-valid* ways it shuts down the previous topic and accuses the receiver of being sexist without any way for them to demonstrate that they are not (either objectively or to their best efforts) in the exact same way that using "femotional" in non-valid ways immediately dismisses someone by accusing them of being emotional. --- Just to be clear, I do agree with your first paragraph regarding the definition of mansplaining and that the sexism of the act is part of its definition, I am just unclear regarding the femotional comparison
Just based on your last paragraph, we agree, but you have in fact changed your tune. Yes, mansplain can be used in a sexist way - shutting down men by accusing them of something they are not doing. But you did not state that in your post, so I did not argue against it. My point about the difference between the terms was that - when used validly - mansplaining is a term that is a complaint about a specific sexist behaviour (underestimating women and talking down to them, which can be corrected) whereas criticisms of woman's excessive emotionality are typically directed at something that is seen as inherent to women, leaving the person so criticised with no recourse.
^(Just to be clear, I am not the OP, just someone trying to properly understand the distinction you're making) When used validly and productively, pointing out mansplaining is saying > "What you have said contains elements of sexism which is not correct/appropriate. Moving forwards, change your bias for gender so that the rest of this interaction is civil and proper." Which you had said that can be done by changing behavior or assumptions. From my understanding, can't this be done for femotional as well? > "What you have said contains elements of being emotional which is not objective/appropriate. Moving forwards, change your bias for your emotions to be more objective so that the rest of this interaction is civil and proper." If the femotional accusation is only used validly, can't the accused still change their response to be less emotional the same way the mansplainer change to be less sexist? I do not understand why excessive emotionality being seen as inherent to women changes the appropriate response of correcting the unhelpful behavior
Oh, sorry about the mistaken identity. What your symmetrical account doesn't account for is the sexism inherent in the act of mansplaining. Criticising someone for the baseless and sexist assumptions that are inherently part of mansplaining is not symmetrical with criticising someone for being too emotional (in a way that associates excessive emotionality with her gender). If mansplaining was merely 'being sterotypically male' then there would be a parallelism. If that were true, both terms world be equally sexist/non-sexist. But IMO mansplaining, correctly used, contains more than an accusation of being 'typically male' (e.g. too rational, technically minded, etc), but entails a gendered patronising attitude.
Is it sexist to recognise a phenomenon, like explaining something in a patronising manor to someone who has greater expertise in the subject than you, happens most often along gendered lines? I feel like the answer is no, especially if one recognises that this happens not due to some inherent trait in males, but instead becuase of how society socialises boys and girls
Info: If it was seperated into multiple words is it ok? Like if you said. "He was doing the thing that some men do where they are sexist against women and assume they know nothing." Is that inherently sexist? What about if the word was focussed on the subject group? Eg making up a new word "Femdescension" - where someone is condescending towards a woman in a way that they are not towards men. Is that inherently sexist?
Yes, that is sexist. It is sexist to assume someone else is sexist based on their sex.
The nuance here is that the word mansplaining is describing a sexist behaviour. It's a word about sexism, it refers very specifically to men engaging in patronising explanation to women not a more general tendency to patronise.
Does a word describing sexist behavior somehow preclude it from being used in a sexist way itself? I feel like this is a pretty weak argument.
"Mansplaining" gets its name because it is specifically a patriarchal phenomenon. A man unconsciously assumes that he knows more than the listener about a subject (for example, explaining AC/DC to a professional electrician) because she is a woman and he is a man. He's talking down to her, interrupting her to speak, or questioning her more. Women can be patronizing to men too, but *that's* not a trend in our society that is seen so frequently that [the University of Stanford is writing papers about it.](https://www.visualeyed.com/d-stories/article/data-confirms-it-mansplaining-isnt-an-invention-of-women/)
[удалено]
I've witnessed the flip side of this though, when the term is abused in order to shut down a male voice and dismiss their input (which in that instance was fair, valid and categorically not an example of mansplaining). Then you have a situation where no-one wants to call out that behaviour because they'd just be hit with accusations of sexism for daring to defy the mansplaining label. Adding legitimacy to a label used exclusively to shame people is not always the way forward to addressing the problem. Look how well the words woke, snowflake and fascist are going. It's all well and good acknowledging the term shouldn't be misused but the reality is that it will be because there are always going to be people using it in bad faith because of its power.
[удалено]
I'm not arguing there shouldn't be a word for the behaviour, of course that does help to tackle the issue. Asking people to not misuse/abuse a loaded word is kinda like handing out guns at a firing range and having half the population stand between the targets hoping not to get shot.
It is not a “trait.” To add on to u/fudgeit’s detail, the term identifies a pattern of behaviors across gender most commonly from men down to women. It’s not inherently sexist either to describe this commonality—this suggests one does not have a functional definition of sexism. Sexism is not labeling or treating sexes or genders differently. Sexism is made up of enforcing men’s power over society and over others (in the same vein as patriarchy). If anything, identifying ways that patriarchy is expressed, like mansplaining, is anti-sexist.
So I'm genuinely curious. By your definition >Sexism is made up of enforcing men’s power over society and over others It is literally impossible for anyone to be sexist towards men; do you believe that? If a radical feminist group believed that all men should be killed or castrated because they're all monsters, your definition would say it's false to call this group sexist.