I hate how the term “mansplaining” has mutated from “When a man condescendingly explains a subject to a woman who is an expert in that subject, because he assumes being a woman makes her ignorant”, which is certainly a valid thing to be upset about, into “Whenever a man explains anything to any woman” , which is sexist and divisive.
The term is still pretty sexist as originally used though. It inherently implies that it’s a characteristic masculine behavior. If you disagree, allow me to demonstrate:
I just came up with this term, “womancomplaining”, it’s when a woman exaggerates a minor inconvenience into a targeted victimization.
How does that term make you feel? Does it seem to imply that I’m talking about a specific, isolated behavior? Or does it seem more like I’m implying this is a characteristic feminine behavior? Would it feel less sexist if I insisted I wasn’t talking about all women, but if you take offense then maybe you feel defensive about being a womancomplainer? What if I told you to calm down, because if you aren’t guilty of it then I’m not talking about you?
I think the insulting part of mansplaining is the assumptive nature of it.
This can all be avoided by a soft check before explaining something, rather than assuming a boy/girl/chimp wouldn’t know the first thing about welding/cooking/crochet/throwing feces.
Whenever I have the urge to info dump about a topic I’ll probe with a, ‘You may very well know more about this than I, please let me know before it becomes tiresome.’ 10 out of 10 it works, and usually both of us learn something.
Take for example the classic tech support situation.
Person with problem: “The remote connection to the device doesn’t work!”
Tech support: “Are you sure the device is turned on?”
Person with problem (getting angry): “Of course it’s on. Do you think I’m stupid?”
Tech support: “Is it the device I see on the background of the video call?”
Person with problem: “Yes”
Tech support: “The lights are not on. Please double check if it’s turned on.”
Person with problem: “Oh, I forgot to plug it in.”
A soft check would have lead the tech support to accept that the device is on, instead of digging further, and it would have lead to potentially hours of wasted time.
The same thing often happens in such situations. The person infodumping does so to clear up potential underlying misunderstandings that a soft check cannot catch. That’s not evil or mean or condescending. It’s done with the clear understanding that the person you are talking to likely knows 95% of the things you are saying, but that the remaining 5% might be an issue and a soft-check fails every single time for that kind of issue.
But it’s also a reverse issue. Many women reflexively assume that any time someone infodumps that person is only doing that to them, because they are women and because that man thinks that women are dumb. Even if that man does the same with other men.
The amount of times i had to explain to phone company customers that their phone line malfunction, which they were reporting from said phone line, was monetary in nature…
I just asume whatever I say is dumb and wrong, so I don’t explain things anymore, I let people find out the hard way, and then act like I didn’t see it coming.
I always like to think of notions like “mansplaining” as social weapons. They can be used against injustice, and they can be used to create it; the outcome varies on the morality or cognitive ability of the person using it.
The judges are out on how it is being used; however, one can be delightfully certain that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play somewhere whenever the term is used. Which party - who can say?
I don’t really see people use the term mansplain to mean anything other than men being condescending. While I do see it used “incorrectly” sometimes, I have no reason to believe the person using it doesn’t believe the man is being rude/condescending. Just because I personally believe something isn’t condescending doesn’t mean the person doesn’t view it like that (and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic). I see people call people assholes when they’re not being assholes. I see people call people jerks when they’re not being jerks. It’s not really a new thing.
In short, I don’t believe anyone is using the term differently, it could be that you don’t think the man doing the explaining is being condescending but they do, or it could be that the term really is used differently and I just haven’t personally seen it (always a possibility).
I have no reason to believe the person using it doesn’t believe the man is being rude/condescending. Just because I personally believe something isn’t condescending doesn’t mean the person doesn’t view it like that (and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic).
There are a lot of insecure people in the world, to whom any explanation feels condescending. Are we really suggesting that the perception of the recipient is more valid than the intent of the subject? That’s kinda the whole problem.
Is it mansplaining for a man who’s been a physical trainer for years to explain to a woman that she’s about to seriously hurt herself with improper form? He knows what he’s talking about, she’s definitely going to hurt herself, his tone is polite but urgent, and the intent is sincerely to help her avoid that. Is her feeling that he’s being condescending by criticizing her form enough to make him a mansplainer?
it could be that the term really is used differently and I just haven’t personally seen it (always a possibility).
I have personally seen it. I’ve personally been accused of mansplaining when correcting someone on something I know a great deal about, and immediately after watching them do it very wrong. Honestly I’ve probably seen it used defensively to delegitimize the man in question much more often than I’ve seen actual mansplaining.
I’m not saying it’s not a real phenomenon, but it seems more often to be a term used to shut down legitimate communication.
I have personally seen it. I’ve personally been accused of mansplaining when correcting someone on something I know a great deal about, and immediately after watching them do it very wrong. Honestly I’ve probably seen it used defensively to delegitimize the man in question much more often than I’ve seen actual mansplaining.
I’m not saying it’s not a real phenomenon, but it seems more often to be a term used to shut down legitimate communication.
I’ve seen this one, too. There are women out there who are using this concept (and the concept of “old white men”) to shield themselves from every form of critique, even if they were totally wrong. There are men out there who are behaving idiotic, but there are also women out there who are behaving idiotic. And I feel that the concept of mansplaining is getting abused by idiotic women and is therefore used against “innocent” men who really want to help. Esp. in the internet the concept is often used as “you are not allowed to say anything because you are a man” and that totally is not helping anyone. Women are getting frustrated because of course the other side will react negatively when you are communicating like that and men totally will think that those feminists are really big idiots.
Your observation is valid, but it would be fair to admit that as you’re not on the receiving end, you might not notice all the occasions women get real condescending mansplaining because it doesn’t touch you personally as much.
Are we really suggesting that the perception of the recipient is more valid than the intent of the subject? That’s kinda the whole problem.
When the topic is “do people use the term mansplaining to describe men explaining something without being condescending”, yes.
Is it mansplaining for a man who’s been a physical trainer for years to explain to a woman that she’s about to seriously hurt herself with improper form?
This is why I said
and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic
For the topic we’re talking about (do people use the term to describe men explaining things while not being condescending), if the woman in that example thought the man was being condescending and thought she knew better, she’d be using the term properly as you describe it should be used. That’s the point I’m trying to illustrate. In her mind she views the man as being condescending. In her mind she believes she knows better. So she’s using the term correctly.
Now to be clear, I’m not saying it is mansplaining. Nor am I saying the man shouldn’t be doing it in that scenario.
In her mind she views the man as being condescending. In her mind she believes she knows better. So she’s using the term correctly.
Now to be clear, I’m not saying it is mansplaining. Nor am I saying the man shouldn’t be doing it in that scenario.
That’s my point. It’s being used far too liberally. I’m not saying they don’t feel justified in using it, I’m saying that the standard being applied is far too low, and it shuts down legitimate communication. It has the built in defense of delegitimizing any attempts at clarification, because obviously the mansplainer is just mansplaining how he isn’t mansplaining.
To go back to my analogy:
Would you likewise agree that a man would be justified in accusing a woman, with an accurate and valid complaint, of womancomplaining simply because he felt she was exaggerating? And couldn’t he then go on to deflect any clarification she offers as further womancomplaining?
I’m not saying these people don’t feel like they’re using their terms correctly, I’m saying that it shuts down communication and accelerates the weaponization of accusation. It contributes to the gender divide, and has certainly helped to nudge men towards man-o-sphere radicalization.
I don’t mean to address any of your points with this reply, I just want to point out that men regularly accuse women of “womancomplaining” or “being too emotional” or “being hysterical.” A lot of women were lobotomised because of this kind of thing.
Would you likewise agree that a man would be justified in accusing a woman, with an accurate and valid complaint, of womancomplaining simply because he felt she was exaggerating?
I’ve made it extremely clear, multiple times that I am not commenting on whether I believe anything to actually be mansplaining. By your definition of how people should use your hypothetical example term, the person in your example would be using it correctly.
I haven’t been discussing whether I think it’s a good term or bad term, that’s a different and unrelated topic, I am only talking about whether people “use it differently” now than they used to.
We agree that “mansplaining” means “When a man condescendingly explains a subject to a woman who is an expert in that subject, because he assumes being a woman makes her ignorant”.
I’m saying “condescendingly” is defined by intent, even subconscious.
You’re saying “condescendingly” is defined by perception, even inaccurate.
When I say it is being used differently, I’m talking about the shift from my definition of “condescendingly” to yours.
Although, there’s also the “who is an expert in that subject” modifier on “woman” that has definitely been dropped in contemporary usage as well.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying there is not some objective way for someone to know someone else’s intentions. Say you believe something is a fire hazard. You say “that’s a fire hazard.” Turns out it’s not a fire hazard. Have you used the term fire hazard differently than everyone else? No, of course not! You still used it to describe something you believed was a fire hazard, you were just mistaken about whether it was a fire hazard.
I’m saying people who use the term mansplain aren’t using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
You’re trying to make this about whether someone is correct in their assessment of whether someone is being condescending. I’ve said it multiple times that I’m talking about how people use it and not whether people agree that they’re correct.
If a woman says a man mansplained something and she believes the man is being condescending, then she’s using the same definition you just said we agree on. Full stop. I don’t believe women use the term differently. It does not matter what the intentions were. I am also not saying she would be right or wrong. Because all I have been talking about is how the term is used.
If you hear a woman say something was mansplaining but you don’t agree that the man was being condescending, that’s okay, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But it doesn’t mean she was using the term to describe something that wasn’t condescending. It just means you disagree that the man was being condescending.
I’m saying people who use the term mansplain aren’t using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
Which brings us back to the “expert” angle which has been completely dropped. That’s the mechanism that lends legitimacy to the accusation of condescension. That’s what elevates a vague perception of condescension to an accurate assessment. Otherwise you’re just flinging sexist slurs based on your immediate personal vibes.
Since the gendered nature of the term has been brought up, your comment makes me think of the word “bitch” compared to asshole or jerk. All three terms get used entirely subjectively, but I think most reasonable people agree that “bitch” is at least a bit more crass and tasteless due to its more gendered nature. I know we’ll never get rid of ugly words when using words to hurt and offend, but I think it does show that it matters if a term is gendered. So maybe when people are offended by a term being gendered, we should listen no matter their gender. And I think people who like using those terms, especially when told they’re hurtful, should have a long think about what feelings they get from using them.
It just made me think so I wanted to write that out.
To be fair. The only place i see mansplaining ( first kind. The second one is just to try finding a stick to kick a dog. ) is online. I see and talk to man …
also i see womancoplaining online all the time.
Actually, no. I love explaining things, it’s part of my personality. But soo many women told me that I should stop mansplaining, that nowadays I just don’t talk to women anymore because of the fear that they see me as a mansplainer. My girlfriend has to live with that, but otherwise, I hate talking to women because of the stupid mansplaining thing. It’s sexist as fuck and I hate the term.
It is used much more freely than that. I agree that it’s a problem when it actually happens, but I’d argue the accurate use of the term is not the typical one.
I agree that it’s not always used accurately. I read your other responses and I honestly used to have the same beliefs as you, but I really tried to observe and listen openly the past few years and it shifted my perspective.
Mansplaining is a real problem. If you try to observe social interactions in detail, you’ll notice it more and more often, you’ll even catch yourself doing it. A lot of men really talk very differently to women than other men.
When so many women come out and talk about this issue, they’re not all wrong. I find it kind of ironic that a lot of times, they’re dismissed because men feel the urge to explain and tell them they’re over-reacting.
Sidenote as a response to one of your other replies: I believe that the way the message is perceived is more important than the intent of the message. My intent with this reply is to help you try to think and observe this issue more openly. If it is perceived as attacking your beliefs and putting you on the defensive, then it obviously wasn’t the right message to get through to you. I don’t mean to be condescending, but I’m sure these same words may be condescending to some people. I’m just not the right person to get through to those people on this issue.
I get that, I do not disagree. My main complaints are:
1 With the term itself, because a la my “womancomplaining” analogy, it shifts the focus from “this man was being a sexist, condescending asshole” to “being a sexist condescending asshole is just a thing men do”
2 With the overuse which is used to broadly dismiss legitimate attempts at communication. It’s definitely a problem when random guys try to explain a woman’s specialty to her, not so much when an man with expertise tries to correct a woman who’s definitely wrong. The problem isn’t that this behavior is being called out when it happens, I’m totally fine with that (though the term itself is still sexist). The problem is that it’s being used to defect legitimate communication.
I believe that the way the message is perceived is more important than the intent of the message. My intent with this reply is to help you try to think and observe this issue more openly.
I appreciate that, but I’ve done that. I understand that it’s important to be empathetic, I try to myself whenever possible. But communication breaks down when you pander to everyone for the sake of the most sensitive perceiver. No one can control how someone else feels, and you can’t know who is going to feel what way. If everyone treated each other in the gentlest way possible no one could effectively communicate.
Conflict is necessary for improvement. You cannot progress without some disagreement with the current state. If someone is wrong, and no one wants to hurt their feelings by correcting them, they will continue being wrong. In another message, I used the example of a person about to lift weights with a terrible form that was sure to cause them avoidable injury. An expert onlooker holding their tongue for fear of seeming condescending spares the lifter the feeling of being talked down to, but replaces that with serious self-injury.
I don’t mean to be condescending, but I’m sure these same words may be condescending to some people.
This is a perfect illustration. You’ve been nothing but patient and gentle, you haven’t said anything condescending, but you’re still worried that I might think it is, even after I’ve shown clear objection to that kind of hypersensitivity. It’s infantilizing in its own way to treat everyone as if they can’t handle the slightest disagreement without being offended. The whole premise of moderating your communication to avoid offending the most sensitive perceiver grinds effective communication among equals to a halt.
I can understand your first point, but being sexist condescending assholes seems to be more of a thing men do, and obviously this was experienced by enough women for someone to coin the term and have it become an immediately relatable experience. You could definitely rephrase it to be something less sexist like “condes-plaining” (work in progress), but it loses the inherent nature of pointing out that it is something women are experiencing from men.
I also agree with you that overuse of the term would be bad. I think I disagree that the term is being overused. Every term is used incorrectly in places. I know this is anecdotal, but I haven’t seen or experienced the term being used inaccurately all that often.
For the second half of our discussion, I think I should clarify that I was talking from a one-on-one conversational perspective, not a lecture hall, group discussion, or a friend group. I think those environments are very different and while perception also matters there, it would be a different kind of discussion.
A one-one conversation like a gym trainer calling out someone with bad form could go like:
“You know, that’s terrible form, here’s how you do it the right way” versus
“Hey, excuse me, I noticed your form isn’t safe and could lead to injury. Would you like some help?”
I think both ways get the point across, one of them is a lot nicer than the other.
I believe your communication should pander to the person you’re addressing, if you are trying to have a constructive conversation. You can disagree with someone and present it in about a million different ways - some of them might be offensive to that person, others might be well-received. The reason I mentioned that my words may be condescending to some people was not out of worry or fear of offending you, but as a point that different people expect communication in different ways.
I think you’re doing the same thing subconsciously, you’re saying things in a concise and respectful way such that you believe will be perceived well by me. You could say the same thing in ways I’d find incredibly rude, and we would not be having a constructive discussion. Now if someone finds what you’re saying offensive when you’re not trying to be offensive, then you can either rephrase yourself or accept that you won’t be able to effectively communicate with that person one-on-one.
being sexist condescending assholes seems to be more of a thing men do
Right, like being a relf-righteous martyr seems to be more of a thing women do, which is experienced by a large number of men. But that doesn’t make it right to characterize all women as doing it, or suggest that it’s unique to women, which the term “womencomplaining” implicitly does.
Women “mansplain”, men “womancomplain”. Only an obnoxious minority of men “mansplain”, only an obnoxious minority of women “womancomplain”. Those people are obnoxious. Focusing on their gender gets dangerous close to “13%” territory.
condes-plaining
I like that way more, actually. That might be a legitimate replacement which highlights the problem without being sexist.
I know this is anecdotal, but I haven’t seen or experienced the term being used inaccurately all that often.
Anecdotally, I have.
“You know, that’s terrible form, here’s how you do it the right way” versus
“Hey, excuse me, I noticed your form isn’t safe and could lead to injury. Would you like some help?”
I think both ways get the point across, one of them is a lot nicer than the other.
Agreed. But even the second is considered condescending by some.
I think you’re doing the same thing subconsciously
Uh, that is actually kinda condescending. I was fully conscious when I decided on my tone.
Now if someone finds what you’re saying offensive when you’re not trying to be offensive, then you can either rephrase yourself or accept that you won’t be able to effectively communicate with that person one-on-one.
And that’s the issue. Once person X has decided person Y is offensive, all appeals and rephrasings will be discarded as additional offenses. Sure, that’s no big loss in any individual case, but the more popular that trend becomes, the more people cut off from effective communication.
Basic to who, the man or the woman? How does one know what another deems basic? What appears basic to you is not likely to be so for me, and the converse of this is also likely true.
Better said that mansplaining is a post-hoc label applied to an event with a presumption of intent on the speaking party made. One can liken it to “are you looking at me pal?”, but more socially acceptable.
I think every field has things that are pretty universally understood to be basic. If you and I are in computer science and I’m explaining how a keyboard works to you unsolicited, that’s pretty basic stuff and I would be mansplaining.
I hate how the term “mansplaining” has mutated from “When a man condescendingly explains a subject to a woman who is an expert in that subject, because he assumes being a woman makes her ignorant”, which is certainly a valid thing to be upset about, into “Whenever a man explains anything to any woman” , which is sexist and divisive.
The term is still pretty sexist as originally used though. It inherently implies that it’s a characteristic masculine behavior. If you disagree, allow me to demonstrate:
I just came up with this term, “womancomplaining”, it’s when a woman exaggerates a minor inconvenience into a targeted victimization.
How does that term make you feel? Does it seem to imply that I’m talking about a specific, isolated behavior? Or does it seem more like I’m implying this is a characteristic feminine behavior? Would it feel less sexist if I insisted I wasn’t talking about all women, but if you take offense then maybe you feel defensive about being a womancomplainer? What if I told you to calm down, because if you aren’t guilty of it then I’m not talking about you?
It still seems pretty sexist, doesn’t it.
I think the insulting part of mansplaining is the assumptive nature of it.
This can all be avoided by a soft check before explaining something, rather than assuming a boy/girl/chimp wouldn’t know the first thing about welding/cooking/crochet/throwing feces.
Whenever I have the urge to info dump about a topic I’ll probe with a, ‘You may very well know more about this than I, please let me know before it becomes tiresome.’ 10 out of 10 it works, and usually both of us learn something.
That often doesn’t really work though.
Take for example the classic tech support situation.
A soft check would have lead the tech support to accept that the device is on, instead of digging further, and it would have lead to potentially hours of wasted time.
The same thing often happens in such situations. The person infodumping does so to clear up potential underlying misunderstandings that a soft check cannot catch. That’s not evil or mean or condescending. It’s done with the clear understanding that the person you are talking to likely knows 95% of the things you are saying, but that the remaining 5% might be an issue and a soft-check fails every single time for that kind of issue.
But it’s also a reverse issue. Many women reflexively assume that any time someone infodumps that person is only doing that to them, because they are women and because that man thinks that women are dumb. Even if that man does the same with other men.
The amount of times i had to explain to phone company customers that their phone line malfunction, which they were reporting from said phone line, was monetary in nature…
I just asume whatever I say is dumb and wrong, so I don’t explain things anymore, I let people find out the hard way, and then act like I didn’t see it coming.
Misogynists and misandrists are both awful. It’s kinda funny cuz they’re essentially the same type of person but on opposite sides
I always like to think of notions like “mansplaining” as social weapons. They can be used against injustice, and they can be used to create it; the outcome varies on the morality or cognitive ability of the person using it.
The judges are out on how it is being used; however, one can be delightfully certain that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in play somewhere whenever the term is used. Which party - who can say?
I don’t really see people use the term mansplain to mean anything other than men being condescending. While I do see it used “incorrectly” sometimes, I have no reason to believe the person using it doesn’t believe the man is being rude/condescending. Just because I personally believe something isn’t condescending doesn’t mean the person doesn’t view it like that (and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic). I see people call people assholes when they’re not being assholes. I see people call people jerks when they’re not being jerks. It’s not really a new thing.
In short, I don’t believe anyone is using the term differently, it could be that you don’t think the man doing the explaining is being condescending but they do, or it could be that the term really is used differently and I just haven’t personally seen it (always a possibility).
There are a lot of insecure people in the world, to whom any explanation feels condescending. Are we really suggesting that the perception of the recipient is more valid than the intent of the subject? That’s kinda the whole problem.
Is it mansplaining for a man who’s been a physical trainer for years to explain to a woman that she’s about to seriously hurt herself with improper form? He knows what he’s talking about, she’s definitely going to hurt herself, his tone is polite but urgent, and the intent is sincerely to help her avoid that. Is her feeling that he’s being condescending by criticizing her form enough to make him a mansplainer?
I have personally seen it. I’ve personally been accused of mansplaining when correcting someone on something I know a great deal about, and immediately after watching them do it very wrong. Honestly I’ve probably seen it used defensively to delegitimize the man in question much more often than I’ve seen actual mansplaining.
I’m not saying it’s not a real phenomenon, but it seems more often to be a term used to shut down legitimate communication.
I’ve seen this one, too. There are women out there who are using this concept (and the concept of “old white men”) to shield themselves from every form of critique, even if they were totally wrong. There are men out there who are behaving idiotic, but there are also women out there who are behaving idiotic. And I feel that the concept of mansplaining is getting abused by idiotic women and is therefore used against “innocent” men who really want to help. Esp. in the internet the concept is often used as “you are not allowed to say anything because you are a man” and that totally is not helping anyone. Women are getting frustrated because of course the other side will react negatively when you are communicating like that and men totally will think that those feminists are really big idiots.
Your observation is valid, but it would be fair to admit that as you’re not on the receiving end, you might not notice all the occasions women get real condescending mansplaining because it doesn’t touch you personally as much.
When the topic is “do people use the term mansplaining to describe men explaining something without being condescending”, yes.
This is why I said
For the topic we’re talking about (do people use the term to describe men explaining things while not being condescending), if the woman in that example thought the man was being condescending and thought she knew better, she’d be using the term properly as you describe it should be used. That’s the point I’m trying to illustrate. In her mind she views the man as being condescending. In her mind she believes she knows better. So she’s using the term correctly.
Now to be clear, I’m not saying it is mansplaining. Nor am I saying the man shouldn’t be doing it in that scenario.
That’s my point. It’s being used far too liberally. I’m not saying they don’t feel justified in using it, I’m saying that the standard being applied is far too low, and it shuts down legitimate communication. It has the built in defense of delegitimizing any attempts at clarification, because obviously the mansplainer is just mansplaining how he isn’t mansplaining.
To go back to my analogy:
Would you likewise agree that a man would be justified in accusing a woman, with an accurate and valid complaint, of womancomplaining simply because he felt she was exaggerating? And couldn’t he then go on to deflect any clarification she offers as further womancomplaining?
I’m not saying these people don’t feel like they’re using their terms correctly, I’m saying that it shuts down communication and accelerates the weaponization of accusation. It contributes to the gender divide, and has certainly helped to nudge men towards man-o-sphere radicalization.
I don’t mean to address any of your points with this reply, I just want to point out that men regularly accuse women of “womancomplaining” or “being too emotional” or “being hysterical.” A lot of women were lobotomised because of this kind of thing.
Yes, and it’s a bad thing. That’s my point.
You say that’s your point but,
I’ve made it extremely clear, multiple times that I am not commenting on whether I believe anything to actually be mansplaining. By your definition of how people should use your hypothetical example term, the person in your example would be using it correctly.
I haven’t been discussing whether I think it’s a good term or bad term, that’s a different and unrelated topic, I am only talking about whether people “use it differently” now than they used to.
We agree that “mansplaining” means “When a man condescendingly explains a subject to a woman who is an expert in that subject, because he assumes being a woman makes her ignorant”.
I’m saying “condescendingly” is defined by intent, even subconscious.
You’re saying “condescendingly” is defined by perception, even inaccurate.
When I say it is being used differently, I’m talking about the shift from my definition of “condescendingly” to yours.
Although, there’s also the “who is an expert in that subject” modifier on “woman” that has definitely been dropped in contemporary usage as well.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying there is not some objective way for someone to know someone else’s intentions. Say you believe something is a fire hazard. You say “that’s a fire hazard.” Turns out it’s not a fire hazard. Have you used the term fire hazard differently than everyone else? No, of course not! You still used it to describe something you believed was a fire hazard, you were just mistaken about whether it was a fire hazard.
I’m saying people who use the term mansplain aren’t using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
You’re trying to make this about whether someone is correct in their assessment of whether someone is being condescending. I’ve said it multiple times that I’m talking about how people use it and not whether people agree that they’re correct.
If a woman says a man mansplained something and she believes the man is being condescending, then she’s using the same definition you just said we agree on. Full stop. I don’t believe women use the term differently. It does not matter what the intentions were. I am also not saying she would be right or wrong. Because all I have been talking about is how the term is used.
If you hear a woman say something was mansplaining but you don’t agree that the man was being condescending, that’s okay, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But it doesn’t mean she was using the term to describe something that wasn’t condescending. It just means you disagree that the man was being condescending.
Which brings us back to the “expert” angle which has been completely dropped. That’s the mechanism that lends legitimacy to the accusation of condescension. That’s what elevates a vague perception of condescension to an accurate assessment. Otherwise you’re just flinging sexist slurs based on your immediate personal vibes.
That’s the change in meaning.
Since the gendered nature of the term has been brought up, your comment makes me think of the word “bitch” compared to asshole or jerk. All three terms get used entirely subjectively, but I think most reasonable people agree that “bitch” is at least a bit more crass and tasteless due to its more gendered nature. I know we’ll never get rid of ugly words when using words to hurt and offend, but I think it does show that it matters if a term is gendered. So maybe when people are offended by a term being gendered, we should listen no matter their gender. And I think people who like using those terms, especially when told they’re hurtful, should have a long think about what feelings they get from using them.
It just made me think so I wanted to write that out.
To be fair. The only place i see mansplaining ( first kind. The second one is just to try finding a stick to kick a dog. ) is online. I see and talk to man … also i see womancoplaining online all the time.
Actually, no. I love explaining things, it’s part of my personality. But soo many women told me that I should stop mansplaining, that nowadays I just don’t talk to women anymore because of the fear that they see me as a mansplainer. My girlfriend has to live with that, but otherwise, I hate talking to women because of the stupid mansplaining thing. It’s sexist as fuck and I hate the term.
So there are woman irl that really stop a dude talking with the id he is msng
The post says “basic things”
Tricky - basic is very contextual. Basic to an electrician isn’t basic to a plumber!
Right, so a man talking to a woman in the same field shouldn’t explain what is basic in their field. That is mansplaining. Mansplaining is contextual.
It is used much more freely than that. I agree that it’s a problem when it actually happens, but I’d argue the accurate use of the term is not the typical one.
I agree that it’s not always used accurately. I read your other responses and I honestly used to have the same beliefs as you, but I really tried to observe and listen openly the past few years and it shifted my perspective.
Mansplaining is a real problem. If you try to observe social interactions in detail, you’ll notice it more and more often, you’ll even catch yourself doing it. A lot of men really talk very differently to women than other men.
When so many women come out and talk about this issue, they’re not all wrong. I find it kind of ironic that a lot of times, they’re dismissed because men feel the urge to explain and tell them they’re over-reacting.
Sidenote as a response to one of your other replies: I believe that the way the message is perceived is more important than the intent of the message. My intent with this reply is to help you try to think and observe this issue more openly. If it is perceived as attacking your beliefs and putting you on the defensive, then it obviously wasn’t the right message to get through to you. I don’t mean to be condescending, but I’m sure these same words may be condescending to some people. I’m just not the right person to get through to those people on this issue.
I get that, I do not disagree. My main complaints are:
1 With the term itself, because a la my “womancomplaining” analogy, it shifts the focus from “this man was being a sexist, condescending asshole” to “being a sexist condescending asshole is just a thing men do”
2 With the overuse which is used to broadly dismiss legitimate attempts at communication. It’s definitely a problem when random guys try to explain a woman’s specialty to her, not so much when an man with expertise tries to correct a woman who’s definitely wrong. The problem isn’t that this behavior is being called out when it happens, I’m totally fine with that (though the term itself is still sexist). The problem is that it’s being used to defect legitimate communication.
I appreciate that, but I’ve done that. I understand that it’s important to be empathetic, I try to myself whenever possible. But communication breaks down when you pander to everyone for the sake of the most sensitive perceiver. No one can control how someone else feels, and you can’t know who is going to feel what way. If everyone treated each other in the gentlest way possible no one could effectively communicate.
Conflict is necessary for improvement. You cannot progress without some disagreement with the current state. If someone is wrong, and no one wants to hurt their feelings by correcting them, they will continue being wrong. In another message, I used the example of a person about to lift weights with a terrible form that was sure to cause them avoidable injury. An expert onlooker holding their tongue for fear of seeming condescending spares the lifter the feeling of being talked down to, but replaces that with serious self-injury.
This is a perfect illustration. You’ve been nothing but patient and gentle, you haven’t said anything condescending, but you’re still worried that I might think it is, even after I’ve shown clear objection to that kind of hypersensitivity. It’s infantilizing in its own way to treat everyone as if they can’t handle the slightest disagreement without being offended. The whole premise of moderating your communication to avoid offending the most sensitive perceiver grinds effective communication among equals to a halt.
I can understand your first point, but being sexist condescending assholes seems to be more of a thing men do, and obviously this was experienced by enough women for someone to coin the term and have it become an immediately relatable experience. You could definitely rephrase it to be something less sexist like “condes-plaining” (work in progress), but it loses the inherent nature of pointing out that it is something women are experiencing from men. I also agree with you that overuse of the term would be bad. I think I disagree that the term is being overused. Every term is used incorrectly in places. I know this is anecdotal, but I haven’t seen or experienced the term being used inaccurately all that often.
For the second half of our discussion, I think I should clarify that I was talking from a one-on-one conversational perspective, not a lecture hall, group discussion, or a friend group. I think those environments are very different and while perception also matters there, it would be a different kind of discussion. A one-one conversation like a gym trainer calling out someone with bad form could go like: “You know, that’s terrible form, here’s how you do it the right way” versus “Hey, excuse me, I noticed your form isn’t safe and could lead to injury. Would you like some help?” I think both ways get the point across, one of them is a lot nicer than the other.
I believe your communication should pander to the person you’re addressing, if you are trying to have a constructive conversation. You can disagree with someone and present it in about a million different ways - some of them might be offensive to that person, others might be well-received. The reason I mentioned that my words may be condescending to some people was not out of worry or fear of offending you, but as a point that different people expect communication in different ways.
I think you’re doing the same thing subconsciously, you’re saying things in a concise and respectful way such that you believe will be perceived well by me. You could say the same thing in ways I’d find incredibly rude, and we would not be having a constructive discussion. Now if someone finds what you’re saying offensive when you’re not trying to be offensive, then you can either rephrase yourself or accept that you won’t be able to effectively communicate with that person one-on-one.
Right, like being a relf-righteous martyr seems to be more of a thing women do, which is experienced by a large number of men. But that doesn’t make it right to characterize all women as doing it, or suggest that it’s unique to women, which the term “womencomplaining” implicitly does.
Women “mansplain”, men “womancomplain”. Only an obnoxious minority of men “mansplain”, only an obnoxious minority of women “womancomplain”. Those people are obnoxious. Focusing on their gender gets dangerous close to “13%” territory.
I like that way more, actually. That might be a legitimate replacement which highlights the problem without being sexist.
Anecdotally, I have.
Agreed. But even the second is considered condescending by some.
Uh, that is actually kinda condescending. I was fully conscious when I decided on my tone.
And that’s the issue. Once person X has decided person Y is offensive, all appeals and rephrasings will be discarded as additional offenses. Sure, that’s no big loss in any individual case, but the more popular that trend becomes, the more people cut off from effective communication.
Basic to who, the man or the woman? How does one know what another deems basic? What appears basic to you is not likely to be so for me, and the converse of this is also likely true.
Better said that mansplaining is a post-hoc label applied to an event with a presumption of intent on the speaking party made. One can liken it to “are you looking at me pal?”, but more socially acceptable.
I think every field has things that are pretty universally understood to be basic. If you and I are in computer science and I’m explaining how a keyboard works to you unsolicited, that’s pretty basic stuff and I would be mansplaining.
I’ve had arguments with colleagues over things I assumed were basic and blindingly obvious.
Never assume someone knows something.
In addition to “basic” being relative, I was also speaking more generally about the concept, not purely about the exact post.