'Mansplaining'

[Moiraine]

So, let me start off by saying I've never used this word and never will. I just see it on my Facebook feed in lots of articles/stories. I don't see why we need a new word for everything. It just causes oversimplifying and generalizing which I think makes it harder for people to have a real conversation about things.

 

Now that said, I also find it funny that any time the term is used, even if it's completely appropriate, lots of men get angry and claim the person is sexist. I don't get this.

 

The term isn't automatically sexist. There are times when it perfectly summarizes what a person is doing. Basically, it's a man assuming a woman doesn't understand something because she's a woman. This is a real thing. Saying someone is doing it doesn't make you sexist.

 

Womansplaining is a thing too. It's a woman assuming a man doesn't understand something because he's a man. E.g. if a woman started lecturing a guy about how to cook/bake something, because traditionally women tend to do more cooking around the house, without having any idea what he knows about cooking.

 

I think the added requirement is that the person explaining is being condescending.

 

 

I do get that it's often used when it doesn't make any sense to use it. A man who knows a lot about a subject explaining it to someone who happens to be female is not automatically "mansplaining." I'm guessing the term is appropriate < 20% of the time it's used.

[B.B. Hemingway]

Wait, are you trying to put 'the woman' back in the kitchen?

 

Shame on you.

[The Dude]

I bet most guys who are condescending pricks to girls are condescending pricks to guys too.  "Mansplaining" just seems like an attempt from feminists to play the victim.

[zoogs]

Well no, I think the entire point is spotlighting the unbalanced power dynamic in a lot of dialogue spaces. Men and women are not regarded as equally authoritative voices. It's not about whether the individual is "being a prick" or not.

 

There's a passage from The Lost World (Crichton) that captures the idea quite well, I think. Some self-assured idiot blithely educates his buddies in a way that will prove catastrophically incorrect, but he has no idea. Instead, he emerges from the conversation satisfied that he's (paraphrasing, I think) back in his 'customary role, dispensing knowledge to those who lack it.' Of course, in this case it's a male character to other male characters. But generally, these presumed roles are quite gendered, which should really be the most obvious observation in the world...and yet it engenders a lot of sensitivity. People who benefit from the status quo are comfortable keeping things that way, and quite threatened actually by the idea that there's no merit to how things are and that maybe things should change.

 

It's not anybody's fault, per se. We all grew up with these roles reinforced for us throughout culture, example, etc. It takes concerted, deliberate, articulated effort to combat such those ingrained default notions.

[teachercd]

9 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Well no, I think the entire point is spotlighting the unbalanced power dynamic in a lot of dialogue spaces. Men and women are not regarded as equally authoritative voices. It's not about whether the individual is "being a prick" or not.

 

There's a passage from The Lost World (Crichton) that captures the idea quite well, I think. Some self-assured idiot blithely educates his buddies in a way that will prove catastrophically incorrect, but he has no idea. Instead, he emerges from the conversation satisfied that he's (paraphrasing, I think) back in his 'customary role, dispensing knowledge to those who lack it.' Of course, in this case it's a male character to other male characters. But generally, these presumed roles are quite gendered, which should really be the most obvious observation in the world...and yet it engenders a lot of sensitivity. People who benefit from the status quo are comfortable keeping things that way, and quite threatened actually by the idea that there's no merit to how things are and that maybe things should change.

 

It's not anybody's fault, per se. We all grew up with these roles reinforced for us throughout culture, example, etc. It takes concerted, deliberate, articulated effort to combat such those ingrained default notions.

To me they are...

[zoogs]

Somewhat tangentially, saw this today. It's an interesting and pretty on point reflection of the different language and connotations are used to describe similar traits and behaviors. None of this should be foreign to anybody alive right now.

 

 

 

[teachercd]

I don't see it that way.  Maybe it is because I have been luck yo have some amazing female bosses and co-workers but I feel sorry for anyone that does see it that way.

[Moiraine]

54 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I don't see it that way.  Maybe it is because I have been luck yo have some amazing female bosses and co-workers but I feel sorry for anyone that does see it that way.

 

The thing is no one except the crazy feminists (the ones that give equal rights feminists a bad name) think most men or all men see it that way.

 

Maybe in the 50's, 70% of men saw it that way

The 80's, 50%

 

Maybe now it's 20%.

 

But it's not 0%.

 

 

The thing I do notice a lot is many men who might not even be guilty of whatever the conversation is about, still are very defensive about it.

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

I bet most guys who are condescending pricks to girls are condescending pricks to guys too.  "Mansplaining" just seems like an attempt from feminists to play the victim.

 

 

A proportion of them are condescending to everyone, but there are still quite a few men who see other men as equals (and therefore don't automatically assume they don't know things) and women as less than.

[teachercd]

33 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

The thing is no one except the crazy feminists (the ones that give equal rights feminists a bad name) think most men or all men see it that way.

 

Maybe in the 50's, 70% of men saw it that way

The 80's, 50%

 

Maybe now it's 20%.

 

But it's not 0%.

 

 

The thing I do notice a lot is many men who might not even be guilty of whatever the conversation is about, still are very defensive about it.

That is probably correct.

[Fru]

I prefer "douche-splaining." We've all been at a party or with a group of friends and there's always that one guy that knows everything, has been everywhere, has seen everything, is an expert on everything, etc that needs to correct everyone.

[BigRedBuster]

I can honestly say I have never heard any of these terms before.

 

Man-splaining

Woman-splaining

Douche-splaining

 

 

[teachercd]

36 minutes ago, Fru said:

I prefer "douche-splaining." We've all been at a party or with a group of friends and there's always that one guy that knows everything, has been everywhere, has seen everything, is an expert on everything, etc that needs to correct everyone.

The old "One-upper"

[Fru]

Just now, teachercd said:

The old "One-upper"

 

Yup. 

 

I think back to the McGregor-Mayweather fight. A big group of friends and I watched it downtown and I was astonished at all of the boxing experts I was surrounded by. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Fru said:

 

Yup. 

 

I think back to the McGregor-Mayweather fight. A big group of friends and I watched it downtown and I was astonished at all of the boxing experts I was surrounded by. 

Ha...Was Teddy Atlas in the group all of a sudden?

 

I know what you mean and I know the type really really well.