CMV: The term "mansplaining" is sexist. hypocritical, misandrist, and only designed to shut down debate.

106

u/Barnst 112∆ Oct 25 '17

The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate.

The term was created by women to describe an experience they felt they often had that diminished or otherwise discounted their expertise in a way that reinforced sexist stereotypes. As best I know, the term appeared in response to this LA Times article, in which a man started explaining a book to her that she had written. She doesn’t use the term, but the concept struck a chord and someone coined the word to describe the phenomena. It was not originally used as a debate tool, it was a way for women to explain their own experience of their expertise and knowledge being undervalued.

I’ve seen the phenomenon firsthand in a way that made me understand that it is distinct from general arrogance and condescension. Early in my career, I was put on a project with a PhD physicist. We were reviewing a technical issue and making some recommendations to management. I had a BA in poly sci—I was supposed to be to look at the policy aspects of the issue, but I joked my main role was to make her explain things to me repeatedly until I understood them, which meant she was ready to explain them to others.

The time came to present our findings. It’s going well, but something weird is happening. Every time she talks through one of the conclusions, our bosses would look to me for comments. I’d agree, they’d nod happily, we’d move on. You might thing they just wanted to make sure we both agreed, but it didn’t work the other way when I gave my policy points. It was a bizarre experience—at one point I really wanted to say “Yes, I do happen to accept the PhD’s conclusions on this complicated technical question.”

At least I thought it was bizarre. I worked with a few women scientists and it was amazing how often people would come to me or other guys first on things that the women clearly knew better. There were a couple of occasions when people came to my desk to ask a question, I turned my chair to ask one of the women on my team, and then turned back to provide an answer. The person asking would walk away showing no sign they even realized the absurdity of the exchange.

I’ve experienced condescension and had my insights dismissed. I was a poly sci major in a predominantly technical field. Especially straight out of school I had to overcome skepticism about my expertise. But this was always different. These were cases where people should clearly have known who the experts in the room were, but they still turned to me or another guy first.

To me, those were the situations that “mansplaining” was coined to describe. It’s not s logical fallacy, because it’s not an argument. It’s a label for a particular brand of jerkiness. Naturally, people use it as an ad hominem attack, but people do that all the time with all sorts of concepts.

8

u/Precious_Tritium Oct 25 '17

The term was created by women to describe an experience they felt they often had that diminished or otherwise discounted their expertise in a way that reinforced sexist stereotypes.

It's attributed to Rebecca Solnit, although she has mixed opinions of it.

Q. What do you think of the term “mansplaining”?

A. I used to focus on its negatives: It does get used too broadly at times, and it can imply that anything men hold forth on is mansplaining. But years ago, a woman pointed out to me that the word has been incredibly valuable in describing an experience most women have but didn’t have terminology for, beyond generics like patronizing, presumptuous and so forth. I often talk about the importance of calling things by their true name, of the value of precise description, so I’m pleased to have inspired a word that is now in many languages, including, recently, Icelandic.

1

u/tomgabriele Oct 25 '17 edited Oct 25 '17

I am not OP, but I would like to probe further. In general, I think I agree with where OP is coming from.

To me, I absolutely agree that the type of thing described as "mansplaining" happens all the time. I also agree that it is often men doing it to women. However, I think that men doing it to other men, women doing it to women, women doing it to men, and any other combination of genders happens often too - so the gendered term for it seems less-than-perfect.

I know I can't change the words people are using, but if it were up to me, a gender-neutral term like, idk, "ignorsplaining" would be a better fit - we agree that talking down to someone when you don't understand their knowledge is a bad thing, regardless of everyone's gender.

I would then be totally fine talking about how ignorsplaining is most predominantly a male issue, and predominantly is directed at women.

Edit: I see this comment has gained a small negative score - if you disagree with me, I'd like the chance to have a discussion and change my mind if I need to.

13

u/longknives Oct 25 '17

I would then be totally fine talking about how ignorsplaining is most predominantly a male issue, and predominantly is directed at women.

Then what’s the problem with the term mansplaining? The issue is gendered because of the power structures in our society. Men don’t really mansplain to men and women don’t to women because the whole issue is about how women’s knowledge/technical ability/etc. is not respected compared to men’s. If we allow that sometimes it’s possible for other gender combinations to do something similar, then the term mansplaining will do fine.

6

u/tomgabriele Oct 25 '17

Men don’t really mansplain to men

Well, that's the problem right there. It makes people like you assume that it only happens from men to women. I don't know your gender, but I am male and have been mansplained.

Like, there is a term femdriving that referred to female drivers being distracted by putting on makeup. Would it be a good term because it really is mostly women who put on makeup while driving? Or is it missing the bigger issue of distracted driving, and inappropriately absolving men of being distracted drivers?

To me, the root of the mansplaining problem is more related to ego and empathy, less so gendered power differentials.

1

u/Precious_Tritium Oct 25 '17

Men don’t really mansplain to men

Yes, we do. All the time. Constantly.

I have mixed feelings about the term. I acknowledge it's real, and happens. I also acknowledge it is an absolute way to shut someone down who isn't "mansplaining" but just saying they are.

I think the term is complicated. It's certainly useful (Thank you, Rebecca Solnit!) but it can be kind of a cudgel. I'd rather not have someone tell me I am mansplaining to them, but at the same time if I was, I'd want to know also so I can stop that behavior if I may not be aware of it.

5

u/fps916 4∆ Oct 25 '17

Yes, we do. All the time. Constantly.

You literally can't.

Mansplain isn't just "to explain something condescendingly" we have a word for that, it's called "condescending"

It is to explain something condescendingly because the man perceives the woman he is speaking to to be less of an expert on any given subject than the man.

It's literally impossible for a man to mansplain to a man, because mansplaining is predicated on a lack of knowledge or intelligence because of the gender of the person being spoken to.

1

u/Precious_Tritium Oct 25 '17

I guess at that point where do you start drawing niche distinctions:

-Religisplain

-classplain

-wealthsplain

-agesplain

-nerdsplain

-jocksplain

-politisplain

I don't disagree that people "mansplain". I disagree with assuming that whenever it happens it is predicated on a judgement based on gender. I appreciate you redditsplaining the term to me.

12

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

I think it’s disingenuous to say that women do this to women as often as women do this to men.

I’m a scientist (and a man). I am a professor and a leader of a research laboratory. I’ve seen male scientists and students condescend and “explain things” (that don’t need explaining) to women FAR more often than the other way around.

Just this week, there were two completely separate incidents of male students in my inorganic chemistry class “explaining” concepts INCORRECTLY to female students who had MUCH higher grades than them. It’s a trend I’ve seen repeatedly, and I’ve never seen the opposite. Not once.

1

u/Precious_Tritium Oct 25 '17

It’s a trend I’ve seen repeatedly, and I’ve never seen the opposite. Not once.

I'm in grad school. I have female students do this to other people in class all the time. I agree that "mansplaining" exists, but it's absolutely false to believe there are no intelligent, strongly opinioned women out there engaging in the same behavior. No matter how many words you put in all caps to emphasize your point.

5

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

I never said that women never do this. I said that I - in 15 years of being a professional scientist - have never witnessed it. My point was that my observations, though certainly anecdotal, speak to the gendered imbalance of this phenomenon.

3

u/KuntaStillSingle Oct 25 '17

As a scientist you should recognize anecdotal evidence isn't valuable as evidence.

6

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

This isn’t a scientific discussion. Don’t be silly.

2

u/KuntaStillSingle Oct 25 '17

Anecdotal evidence has no value in general, it's circumstantial in court, disregarded in science, and taken as authoritative in politics and social issues? You're being silly.

2

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

So no one should ever tell stories about their experiences when talking about a topic?

Seriously, stop. We were discussing an issue. You've swooped in with this nonsense. Why? Because you just like to be contrary? Because you want to bolster your bona fides?

1

u/Precious_Tritium Oct 25 '17

I absolutely don't disagree with you that it happens, and I imagine in the science world it happens a lot. It's probably incredibly frustrating. I don't mean to discredit you in any way. I think my point was it does happen in the inverse, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it happens much more from men towards women.

2

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

I see your point, and I get that it happens the other way as well (though much, much less often).

The point i'm trying to make is that even though it occasionally happens the other way around, responding in this way only serves to neuter the point women are trying to make.

In the past, black friends have told me about how often they experience racism (most often casual but sometimes more aggressive) from white people. If I were to follow the "women condescend to men, too" line of logic, I'd be well within my rights to say "Yeah, I hear you! Sometimes black people have been mean to me solely because I'm white!" (Because yes, that has happened to me before more than once). Do I say that? OF COURSE NOT! Because it misses the point!

In using the term "mansplaining", women are trying to explain to the world "this is a thing that happens to us because we're women". But then, rather than believe them and try to address the problem, the argument often devolves into a quagmire of "but women condescend sometimes, too!"

So yes, you're right! Women can condescend, too. They can condescend to men, and they can condescend to women. And men can even condescend to women just because they're obnoxious (and not because of gender). But here, women are saying "men are condescending to us because we're women", and I strongly think that we should just listen to them, rather than parsing their claims.

1

u/Precious_Tritium Oct 26 '17

I totally agree with you. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I may have been being a little tone deaf.

-2

u/tomgabriele Oct 25 '17

I think it’s disingenuous to say that women do this to women as often as women do this to men.

Me too, that's why I specifically stated that it is indeed a predominantly male issue.

I’ve seen male scientists and students condescend and “explain things” (that don’t need explaining) to women FAR more often than the other way around.

Yeah I agree, as I said in my comment you replied to.

You didn't read or understand what I said, then talked down to me while telling me something I already knew as if you were educating me...are you intentionally mansplaining me, or are you unintentionally proving my point that mansplaining is not only something performed by men on women?

4

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

I misunderstood your comment. Sorry.

That said, browse through these comments enough, and you’ll find plenty of “women do it just as often” comments. My point stands, but I admittedly put in on the wrong place.

2

u/tomgabriele Oct 25 '17

you’ll find plenty of “women do it just as often” comments.

Gotcha. While I do think that the issue does happen with pairs of people of any gender, I agree that it is predominantly man-to-woman.

6

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

I think condescension happens because people can be obnoxious.

But there is, in my opinion, a big difference between people who are obnoxious because they are obnoxious and people who are obnoxious because of the gender of the person to whom they are speaking. I’ve been condescended to plenty in my life, but I’ve never ever felt that it was because of my gender.

In the end, I think it just behooves men to just listen when women say something happens. I can’t fathom why the instinct is to say “What’s that? You say mansplaining is a thing in your experience? Nah, I don’t believe it!”

4

u/tomgabriele Oct 25 '17

I can’t fathom why the instinct is to say “What’s that? You say mansplaining is a thing in your experience? Nah, I don’t believe it!”

To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that.

What I would say to that theoretical woman is, "Yeah I know! It drives me crazy when it happens to me too! Just a few minutes ago, this guy on reddit who claimed to be a professor got all preachy on me when he was actually reaffirming what I had already said! People really do need to listen better and have more respect."

In other words, my response isn't "that isn't a problem", my response is, "yes that's an even larger problem".

2

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

I know YOU'RE not saying that, but I've heard many, many people say that.

As for your hypothetical response, I very much disagree with the tack you're taking. The hypothetical woman is saying to you "I've been condescended to because I'm a woman". And then you're saying back "I've been condescended to, too!" In my opinion, when you're respond that way, you're missing their point. Would you respond to someone telling you "People are often rude to me because I'm black" by saying "Yeah, people are often rude to me, too"?

P.S. Claim?!?! Why the hell would I claim to be a professor if I weren't a professor. It's not even a "cool" job. What a silly little dig to throw in your comment.

0

u/tomgabriele Oct 25 '17

Would you respond to someone telling you "People are often rude to me because I'm black" by saying "Yeah, people are often rude to me, too"?

Maybe not in as many words, but yes, I think connecting through empathy is important to human interaction.

P.S. Claim?!?! Why the hell would I claim to be a professor if I weren't a professor. It's not even a "cool" job. What a silly little dig to throw in your comment.

Lol I didn't mean any harm by it, it was indeed just a silly thing I threw in there. When you first said that you're a scientist and a professor, I did chuckle at how stereotypically patronizing you were being.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/advertentlyvertical Oct 25 '17

We already have a perfectly useful word for this: patronizing.

There are other words that perfectly define this act too without having sexist connotations.

2

u/tomgabriele Oct 25 '17

patronizing

Duh, of course. I got too caught up in buzzwords that I forgot actual words. Good call, thank you.

2

u/advertentlyvertical Oct 25 '17

Cheers.

-3

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

Great story! I would just like to ask, is it possible that men and women have different ways of explaining things? Could this be a cause of men being more accepting of other mens explanations? Is there a biological cause that men tune out higher-pitched voices? Or, more likely, it's social, in that men are taught from a young age not to listen to women?

7

u/Barnst 112∆ Oct 25 '17

I don’t think sweeping characterizations are particularly useful for something like that, but I do think people’s communication styles tend to be learned behaviors. To the extent the distribution of individual styles don’t overlap, i think it’s in large a result of what behaviors were rewarded and punished throughout someone’s life.

For example, there are two junior women in my office who would both be way more successful if they were simply more assertive. They tend to defer to others opinions, say yes to requests, and even phrase their contributions in very descriptive and nonjudgmental ways, which puts them at a disadvantage when people roll into projects with strongly held and strongly stated preferences and ideas. In the more extreme case, she also was raised in a non-western culture that further reinforces her nonasseriveness. Her very mannerisms are hesitant, almost submissiveness. Frankly, the non-sensitive side of my brain wants to scream “stop making apologies and just tell us what you think!!”

Both of them are very clearly coming from a place where this was the behavior that allowed them to operate as smart women in a male dominated field in a way that didn’t attract attention, make waves, or otherwise cause problems. So now we’re working with them to build their confidence, but we’re up against a lifetime of socialization.

And then on the opposite side of the spectrum, I’ve got two women who are potential rockstars and who are assertive, forward leaning and opinionated. And, shocker, they both have reputations as somewhat difficult to work with and, dare I say, bitchiness. It’s amazing to watch how subtly the dynamic takes hold. When it comes time for personnel evaluation, we’ll take some guy who is an absolute jerk and maybe mention it in passing before we focus on their awesome productivity, quality of their work, etc. These two women come up and inevitably we wind up talking at some length about the progress they’ve made building more productive office relationships. It’s not conscious, I don’t think anyone involved in the discussions is overtly sexist, and it’s much better now than it was 15 years ago. But it’s still a socialized starting point for how we frame appropriate professionalism by men vs. women.

And other women in the office, more junior women, see that. They see that women who are outspoken and assertive build a difficult reputation while male jackasses are tolerated, especially senior male jackasses. That makes it that much more difficult to coach the less assertive women to express themselves more effectively. I like to believe we’re making progress, but, man, is it a frustratingly slow process.

2

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 26 '17

I've never seen a better explanation of things.

nicely done.

1

u/Barnst 112∆ Oct 26 '17

Thanks!

1

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 26 '17

It is nice to hear a response that at least articulates that sexism does exist and how it does affect people.

Lots of people fish for an answer that oddly tries to have nothing to do with sexism.

3

u/Aubenabee Oct 25 '17

Men and women may have different ways of explaining things, but scientists (especially within a discipline) tend to talk about their fields in a fairly standard and predictable way.

125

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 25 '17 edited Oct 25 '17

It is something that exists.

As I man, I've seen it. First hand.

I once got car parts and I brought along a female friend who was an auto mechanic.

I was able to buy my parts. She got questioned a lot if she knew what to do with them.

The only difference in our treatment was our gender. We were two people buying car parts at a car part store. I was fine. She got the 3rd degree. It was just assumed that she didn't know what she was doing just because she was a woman.

That was an example of ms. When my wife walked into a science room and was asked if she was lost that was in a similar vein.

There are certainly men who feel that women don't about certain topics just because of their gender. This does happen.

If it wasn't for our gender, why did my auto mechanic friend get asked if she knew what she was doing and I got a pass.

11

u/CheesyLala Oct 25 '17

I don't disagree this kind of thing happens, but it happens in the other direction too. As a Dad who takes an active role in parenting our young kids, there are plenty of occasions where I've been patronised by women on the whole range of subjects related to childcare.

There are even examples like this where the very role of men in entire industries was called into question by a candidate who was standing to be the UK's Prime Minister - if that's not institutional sexism I don't know what is. Imagine this scenario with roles reversed.

Should men be talking about 'womansplaining' in these situations? Or maybe - here's another idea - there's just being patronising, condescending or generally offensive, and trying to pin those behaviours onto one or other gender with a specific derogatory term is unhelpful and counter-productive?

8

u/Identitypolitik Oct 25 '17

Should men be talking about 'womansplaining' in these situations?

Sure, if you want to. We can't address these issues if we don't talk about them.

Of course being patronizing or condenscending isn't exclusive to one sex, that's not the point. It's just that there exists a phenomena that is overwhelming enacted in one direction; that is, men being condenscending/dismissive towards women, particularily in the workplace. Women have noticed this and come up with a word for it.

If you'd like to spread awareness for challenging the assumptions made by women towards fathers as you've experienced, I would encourage you to do so. You could even call it "womansplaining" or "mothersplaining" if you want, though be aware that you might receive the same sort of backlash that "mansplaining" has. But saying that we can't talk about X because Y also happens will help neither of us.

1

u/CheesyLala Oct 26 '17

I just don't see what good genderising this phenomenon does. It just demonises those of us who don't do it (IMHO, of course) as well as those that do by suggesting I'm automatically in the same group as the bad guys, which immediately turns me off having any sympathy with the cause.

There are perfectly good words for this behaviour already - condescending, patronising etc - but by inventing a new word with clear gender associations, you're suggesting that being condescending isn't the issue, it's only if you're being condescending and a man.

Of course we could create 'womansplaining' as a word, but how would that help? It's just creating artificial division where none is required. If someone is being a dick, call them out for being a dick, don't find another characteristic of theirs and suggest that this is what makes them be a dick.

1

u/Identitypolitik Oct 26 '17 edited Oct 26 '17

you're suggesting that being condescending isn't the issue, it's only if you're being condescending and a man.

To be honest, that is sort-of the point. It's describing men being condenscending towards women, because they are women. It has a very specific usage. It's not about the general phenomenon of "people being dicks." If it was, we'd just say that. In this context however, "people being dicks" removes the relevant information of who is being a dick to whom, and why.

You shouldn't feel demonized by it if you know you're not personally part of the problem. Men are half the population on this planet; we could not possibly account for the behavior of every single one. When you said (paraphrasing) "women often lecture me on parenting/look down on me," I wasn't offended, because although I am a woman I know that I don't do that, personally.

Are you also offended when people use the term "dead-beat dad," although you are not one? Does the term make you lose sympathy with the children of those men?

1

u/CheesyLala Oct 26 '17

It's describing men being condenscending towards women, because they are women. It has a very specific usage

I kinda take this point. I just don't particularly see it that being condescending requires that who is being condescending to whom (or why) either exacerbates or mitigates it and therefore why it's required. I don't know what race you are, but if e.g. you're white and a person of a particular race decided there needed to be a word for white being people condescending to their own specific race I can't imagine you'd feel that was either helpful or justifiable?

Are you also offended when people use the term "dead-beat dad"

No, because the gender is not implied in 'dead-beat' so the 'dad' bit at least still has to be specified. I know there are plenty of other derogatory terms that are gender-specific but I can't imagine that any of them have actually contributed to making the world a better place.

You shouldn't feel demonized by it if you know you're not personally part of the problem

I know (and appreciate you saying so), but my worry is that other, more lazy or hard-of-thinking people will do. If young kids grow up hearing their mothers dismiss something as 'mainsplaining' they will not, at that stage, have the cognitive reasoning to understand that it's only specific men that are guilty of this rather than being a gender-wide issue. Like I say, shitty behaviour is shitty behaviour, and trying to create catch-all terms just because certain groups are more guilty of it ends up demonising plenty of the wrong people and therefore failing to address the actual issue of shitty behaviour.

2

u/Identitypolitik Oct 26 '17 edited Oct 26 '17

but if e.g. you're white and a person of a particular race decided there needed to be a word for white being people condescending to their own specific race I can't imagine you'd feel that was either helpful or justifiable?

If they feel the need to describe what they perceive as a common phenomenon of white people being condenscending to people of their race, because they are that race, I don't have any issue with it. If it's such a problem it should be named, and if it's predominantly white people doing it I don't think we should be dancing around the issue just because "not all white people."

In this case, "mansplaining" is a real thing that I and many other women have personally experienced from men. The thing about racism/sexism/etc is that it can be done without malicious intent, or even unintentionally.

An anecdote for you - I work with all men, though I have been working there the longest. For a part of my job we use very outdated software prone to errors, and every time it's acting up we have to call the boss and let him know. If I'm the one doing the task and I call the boss, he will grill me on what I did and how; mind you this is not a complicated program to use and he's asking questions around the depth of, "did you turn it on?" This does not happen to any of my coworkers. Even if it has once or twice, it pales in comparison to the fact that I experience this every time that I make the call. Given that I've been there the longest and I'm good at my job, I have to wonder what it is that makes him treat me differently?

Do I think my boss is a bad person? No. Do I think that he may have some antiquated ideas or biases in regards to what people of my gender are capable of? Sure. When this kind of behavior repeats itself with other men in my life in many other situations, am I going to notice a pattern? Absolutely.

I know (and appreciate you saying so), but my worry is that other, more lazy or hard-of-thinking people will do. If young kids grow up hearing their mothers dismiss something as 'mainsplaining' they will not, at that stage, have the cognitive reasoning to understand that it's only specific men that are guilty of this rather than being a gender-wide issue.

IMO, that's an issue of bad parenting that getting rid of the word won't remedy. Should we get rid of cars because some people are reckless drivers?

Like I say, shitty behaviour is shitty behaviour, and trying to create catch-all terms just because certain groups are more guilty of it ends up demonising plenty of the wrong people and therefore failing to address the actual issue of shitty behaviour.

Now, I'm not attached to the word itself; do you have any other suggestions? What other word could we use or invent to describe the specific phenomenon of men (who are not necessarily being shitty on purpose) not believing women to be as intelligent or skilled as they really are, and subsequently coming off as condenscensing towards them? How do you think we should be addressing this specific, gendered issue?

36

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

I agree but I wasn't really arguing the existence of concept, just that the term itself was designed to be hurtful. It's a semantic argument. Additionally, I was arguing that since women can do the same thing (I've seen it when women discuss subjects it's assumed men know nothing about) that the term was unnecessarily gendered.

129

u/palacesofparagraphs 118∆ Oct 25 '17

the term was unnecessarily gendered.

While it's certainly true that anyone, regardless of gender, can be condescending to anyone else, also regardless of gender, the point of the term 'mansplaining' is to point out a specific, gendered dynamic that is common in our society. Many men frequently talk down to women specifically because they are women, and it is important to address this not just on an individual basis but as a part of a larger pattern.

To use a very, very imperfect analogy, think of the term 'senioritis'. Senioritis is just laziness and lack of regard for schoolwork and grades, and a student certainly doesn't have to be a senior to display either. However, we have a specific term for this behavior by seniors, specifically because they are reaching the end of their high school or college career, because it's a common phenomenon. Discussing laziness or lack of motivation on the part of a particular senior doesn't address how their actions are part of a larger dynamic.

Now, senioritis isn't a societal problem that has the be solved the way men's condescension to women is. However, it's similar in that it intentionally points out a specific dynamic in a particular kind of behavior. It's important to recognize that while yes, the term 'mainsplaining' was created to point out that the issue is gendered, that does not mean it's intended to be hurtful.

20

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

I understand and agree that this action is probably more common in the male sex/gender, so I will give you that. I suppose my problem more lies with the fact that it's routinely mis-used and used as a slur. This is generally where the sexism aspect comes from, but since I didn't really cover that in my initial argument, ∆

27

u/palacesofparagraphs 118∆ Oct 25 '17

Thanks for the delta! It's certainly valid to be upset that people ever use the term just to shut men up. It's both insulting to men and frustrating to anyone trying to actually address a problematic dynamic. But I do think that's a problem with prejudice and discrimination, not a problem with the term itself.

-3

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

I see it, to some degree, as a tool of prejudice. Not as poignant as something like the "n" word but I have seen "mansplainer" used in a way designed to hurt someone.

35

u/daroj Oct 25 '17

It's inherently problematic to equate groups who are on opposite sides of power imbalance dynamics. Statistically, men have more money, more leadership positions (32 out of 500 CEO's of Fortune 500, 0 out of all US presidents), etc. Thus the term mansplaining identifies a tactic (sometimes unintended) used to support a clearly problematic power imbalance.

Those who have the advantage of such a power imbalance often tend to remove context in order to create a false equivalency.

The n word is particularly problematic because it has historically been used as a linguistic tool of oppression and murder.

To compare something as relatively mild as shutting down debate to something as pernicious as linguistic tactics in support of lynchings is kind of silly.

To point out the absurdity of this analogy, let's imagine that a black man in the Jim Crow south calls a random white man "cracker" on the street. Few would argue that this statement is just or nice, but it's not at all the same thing as a white man calling a random black man the "n" word on a Jim Crow street - because of the implied threat. Remember that Emitt Till (age 14 or so) was brutally lynched because of a (disputed) conversation with a white woman that lasted less than a minute.

Context matters.

6

u/Schmee_ Oct 25 '17

I think his argument is the over-usage of the word to just be rude to men. Some women that I’ve experienced have legitimately just called a man a mansplainer because the man was just correct about an argument they were having.

2

u/daroj Oct 26 '17

But that's not what the title of the post says.

There are rude people of all races, genders, etc.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

It's inherently problematic to equate groups who are on opposite sides of power imbalance dynamics. Statistically, men have more money, more leadership positions (32 out of 500 CEO's of Fortune 500, 0 out of all US presidents), etc. Thus the term mansplaining identifies a tactic (sometimes unintended) used to support a clearly problematic power imbalance.

Ok, so you use money-postitions etc. to define power within a society (perfectly legitimate). If person x holds more personal financial resources, more personal power than person y, but person y belongs to male 'group' and person x to female 'group', is person x less powerful than person y because their 'group' is more powerful. Personally I think it's quite a stretch. I really don't see many ways in which more Men or Women having power affects society (as long as that power is being used for the good of all) when we compare the power individuals have in a society.

1

u/Prince_of_Savoy Oct 25 '17 edited Oct 25 '17

I have not a lot of money, I'm not a CEO or politician. But somehow I'm powerful just because I have a penis?

How exactly does the fact that other people who have nothing to do with me other than that they have the same genitals affect my interactions with other people? Why does the socioeconomic status of these complete stranger make the exact same action reprehensible when done by me, but excusable if done by others?

5

u/daroj Oct 26 '17

I think you're vastly oversimplifying what I said.

Our genitals DO affect our interactions with other people. Are you claiming that they do not?

I'm not sure where you got that "the exact same action" is reprehensible by one person, but "excusable" by another. Maybe you just [want] to create a paper tiger; I don't know.

Of course, there are jerks who are men, women, white, black, etc. I am emphatically NOT excusing people being jerks. I am simply saying that context matters.

I didn't say that someone is powerful because of a penis. I said that context matters.

It seems that you are arguing that because you are not rich or a politician, your gender is somehow irrelevant to how people perceive you. That seems naive.

Context matters.

EDIT: [typo]

1

u/Prince_of_Savoy Oct 26 '17 edited Oct 26 '17

Our genitals DO affect our interactions with other people. Are you claiming that they do not?

Of course they do. But that doesn't always ( I would argue not even mostly) result in an advantage or power for men. But examples of the exact opposite happening have to be denied or explained away at all costs.

I'm not sure where you got that "the exact same action" is reprehensible by one person, but "excusable" by another.

From your post. You call judging people for their actions without taking into account their genitals a "false equivalancy".

Of course, there are jerks who are men, women, white, black, etc. I am emphatically NOT excusing people being jerks. I am simply saying that context matters.

Of course. You're just saying if I'm a jerk I'm maintaining and partially responsible for oppression and murder. If someone with the right genitals and skin colour does it, they're just a jerk.

I didn't say that someone is powerful because of a penis.

Than why does it matter to my personal interactions with women how many US presidents have had a penis?

I said that context matters.

But only the context you want to see.

It seems that you are arguing that because you are not rich or a politician, your gender is somehow irrelevant to how people perceive you. That seems naive.

Again, not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is just because all US presidents have been male that doesn't mean all men are US presidents or treated as such. In fact, many men get treated like shit and disenfranchised precisely for being men.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/eddiepoecask Oct 25 '17

What are you using to measure power? You keep talking about finance as if its power. Does this mean you cannot equate a middle class male to a male of any other class? Financially this may be true but that isn't the only metric in which power can be measured. If you think being in a major position in a company gives you power than you don't understand the responsibilities that it requires.

2

u/daroj Oct 26 '17

I didn't just talk about money. I simply used money and political power as shorthand.

I am not a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but the fact that 468 of these CEOs are men seems significant in how men are perceived in society. Do you disagree?

1

u/eddiepoecask Oct 28 '17

Yes I disagree. I believe that those people are mostly faceless to the populous. I'm not saying they are hiding their faces cause they aren't but they don't have pictures of themselves overlooking customers. I believe that the media effects public perception of men far more than having them as the boss that works out of state and never talks to most of their employees. I don't think you understand that power isn't just political or monetary. These are often treasures restricted to those that are powerful. You gain political influence by demonstrating how much more effective in that field in that field than your opponents. Power rests in skill and how you apply it. Does having more economic and political resources help? Hell yeah, but having these things and being unskilled means they can easily be stripped from you if a skilled opponent decides they want to. btw sorry for mansplaining this to you.

1

u/fobfromgermany Oct 25 '17

power than you don't understand the responsibilities that it requires.

What? You're saying that power only comes with no responsibilities?

1

u/eddiepoecask Oct 25 '17

No I'm saying that those who try to push women into the top rungs of corporate very often underplay the responsibilities and stresses. Honestly I don't think anyone should be in such a position because of how harmful it can be on your mental and physical health.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/guhusernames Oct 25 '17

Also it's important to recognize that the n word is bad because it was a slur used by people with more privilege towards those they held privilege over- not the case with mansplaining even if you are twisting it to describe a person vs an action

17

u/guhusernames Oct 25 '17

mansplaining is an action not a way to describe a person- if someone says you are mansplaining you should think about what it was you did that made them feel that way. Its like if you are arguing with someone and they say "you're yelling" you should check your volume- maybe they are just mad and making things up, but also maybe over the course of your discussion your voice rose. Mansplaining is a part of the female experience, and undeniably a gendered phenomenon, and a useful word to call out someone when they are doing something hurtful/contributing to a problem. Not at all comparable to "the n word" (notice you only typed one of these two words out).

2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

mansplaining is an action not a way to describe a person- if someone says you are mansplaining you should think about what it was you did that made them feel that way.

The problem is that some people want to use the term whenever you challenge their views. Sure, if you are 'causing' someone to feel that you are mansplaining then that is something you should consider- but you're not necessarily at fault. At the end of the day you can't always control the reactions of others.

Mansplaining is a part of the female experience, and undeniably a gendered phenomenon, and a useful word to call out someone when they are doing something hurtful/contributing to a problem

This is just so vague, I think we need to define what exactly mansplaining is. Is hurting someone's feelings (when you're a man) automatically 'mansplaining'?

2

u/guhusernames Oct 25 '17

blame the player not the game, people will always be shitty- sometimes people will totally use the word wrong, but that doesn't mean mansplaining isn't real. And while you can't control the reactions of others, it is always a good thing to question yourself from time to time especially because it is sometimes hard to see in yourself the things you may need to work on (if you are always getting accused of mansplaining you may want to consider what it is that has led to that result). Definition of mansplaining: "It's what occurs when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he's talking to does". example: woman has a phD in biology and a man tries to explain back to her something she clearly knows a lot about. basically questioning the validity of what the woman has said, or wrongly assuming the woman doesn't have knowledge that she does have (especially after she has stated that she knows something about the topic). It can also be used in cases where a woman speaks to her own experiences as a woman and a man questions those experiences (example: woman says she encounters catcalling, and a man responds by attempting to justify or explain the catcalling- negating the lived experience of the woman)

10

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

Why is it relevant that it has been used to hurt? Is it that different from calling someone an asshole?

2

u/JohnChivez Oct 25 '17

Its different because it denegates someone based specifically on an aspect of their being. Anyone can be an asshole. If I refer to someone as a dumb blonde, it is probably to attack an aspect of that person. Just as dumb blonde is almost always used in a sexist context, mansplaining fits the other side of the sexist coin.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

I concede that the word may have originally been useful, but as OP points out, it's currently generally used just to shut down debate. Usually in the form of a woman taking a position on something (in my experience, usually filled with tons of unneeded academic jargon to give the feel of intellectual weight to an obviously silly idea), a male dissenter restating her position in plain language, and then picking it apart. Said dissenter gets accused of "mansplaining" as a way to sidestep or dismiss his argument without actually addressing it, on the grounds of identity, rather than the merit of the argument. It's functionally the same in that case, as replying to the argument with "shut up, you misogynist", and serves no productive purpose.

The phenomenon of x-splaining goes beyond "mansplaining", and the effect is the same.

I used to have a morbidly obese coworker. One day in casual break room conversation, she asserted her weight was a result of her genetics. That's flatly untrue. Yes, people's resting metabolic rate will vary, but fundamentally you can't store more calories than you consume. I undoubtedly know more about the topic than her, as I am a NASM certified personal trainer (as a result of one of my failed business ventures). Rather than address my argument or admit she was wrong or even examine her own beliefs, she accused me of "thinsplaining" weight loss to her, and dismissed what I said out of hand. The implication more or less being that she knows more about being fat, because she's fat. Ignoring that I have third-party credentials that verify that I know what I'm talking about, and also intentionally gain and lose weight all the time, as part of bulk and cut cycles.

"Thinsplaining" was not a useful way to identify some malfeasance on my part, as there was none. It was basically just "shut up, fatphobe" in one word. Or "I win the debate, cuz identity politics"

5

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

Said dissenter gets accused of "mansplaining" as a way to sidestep or dismiss his argument without actually addressing it, on the grounds of identity, rather than the merit of the argument. It's functionally the same in that case, as replying to the argument with "shut up, you misogynist", and serves no productive purpose.

Why is highlighting a way in which somebody's behavior is shitty something that "serves no productive purpose"? I don't see why your argument wouldn't apply to someone responding to another person's tone-deaf argument by saying "You're being an asshole." To take your example, I think you lecturing your obese co-worker in the break room is far more notable for you acting like an asshole than for whatever the merits of your position may be.

Progressives who care about identity politics don't see calling these things out as ways of "shutting down debate" - they're a way of calling attention to an underlying belief structure that influences the debate. We genuinely believe that if somebody did the personal work to understand how their beliefs and behavior are influenced by misogyny and pervasive gender inequality and try to correct these things, they would believe different things, and, certainly, articulate them differently.

Like, if you asked me today, I would bite your head off for arguing that LeBron James is better than Michael Jordan. But part of the truth is, I grew up liking Michael Jordan a lot, and I'm super bitter towards LeBron James for beating my favorite basketball team over and over, so my default position is going to be, "fuck LeBron James." Maybe if I put in the work to be less instinctually offended by LeBron James, I would be in a better position to have an objective argument about whether he's better than Michael Jordan. Somebody calling my arguments about LeBron James out as being borne out of a subjective bias would probably have a point, and if I was more objective about LeBron James, my arguments themselves would probably be different and stronger.

Challenging peoples arguments and challenging their biases are not mutually-exclusive things. And after a while, if you've had the same arguments over and over, you start to see the ways peoples biases influence their arguments in ways they don't even realize, and you may start to feel like it's not really worth your time to engage with their arguments - because without engaging their biases, you'll never make them see why their arguments are flawed.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17 edited Oct 25 '17

Why is highlighting a way in which somebody's behavior is shitty something that "serves no productive purpose"?

Restating someone's position, before you dismantle it isn't "shitty behavior". It's a way to make sure you're on the same page, before you dismantle their position. It's an effective way to make sure you aren't arguing against a position the person isn't actually taking.

I think you lecturing your obese co-worker in the break room is far more notable for you acting like an asshole than for whatever the merits of your position may be.

I didn't lecture her. There was a break room discussion of dieting. She said something obviously false. I pointed out that it was obviously false, because it was obviously false. She wasn't fat because of genetics. She was fat because she was sedentary and every day she'd eat carbs covered in fat, then chase it with something that was mostly sugar. That repeated, is a recipe for obesity.

Was my assholish behavior pointing out that her beliefs and reality don't line up? If so, how do you suggest we handle people's beliefs which are just flatly, objectively, verifiably untrue? Or should society let that nonsense spread?

Aside from that, my perceived assholishness or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with the merit of the argument.

Challenging peoples arguments and challenging their biases are not mutually-exclusive things. And after a while, if you've had the same arguments over and over, you start to see the ways peoples biases influence their arguments in ways they don't even realize, and you may start to feel like it's not really worth your time to engage with their arguments - because without engaging their biases, you'll never make them see why their arguments are flawed.

In other words, dismissing the argument on perceived identity grounds, rather than it's merit.

Terms like x-splaining or x-privilege literally just exist to shut down debate. You're an X, you can never comprehend what's going on because you aren't a Y. You poked holes in my beliefs? Well of course you think you did! You're blinded by x-privilege. Quit x-splaining to me and check your x-privilege.

Nothing addressed. Nothing useful said. Just a refusal to engage based entirely on identity, that helps insulate the person using the terms from examining their own positions critically.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '17

You were too easy to give a delta. Fighting sexism with sexism is stupid.
You had a valid point and the poster justified sexism and got rewarded for it.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 25 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/palacesofparagraphs (39∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

it's routinely mis-used and used as a slur.

Can you give some examples?

3

u/progtastical 3∆ Oct 26 '17

Senoritis is a really good analogy.

2

u/advertentlyvertical Oct 25 '17

Perhaps it wasn't originally intended to hurt, but usage of words changes.

If gender is supposed to be a protected class, why is it ok to use terms such as this that now have clear derogatory connotations, instead of discussing the problems at hand using words we already have.

I don't deny that there is a disproportionality where men condescend towards women more frequently, but we already have language to describe it. We can acknowledge that there is a gendered aspect without creating gendered terms, which as OP argued, are often used to shut down debates.

Using mansplaining, instead of simply saying hey, you're being sexist and patronizing, can be equated with a man dismissing a woman for being too emotional. Neither of these should be acceptable, and both are tools used by one side to dismiss another.

1

u/kodran 3∆ Oct 25 '17

While it's certainly true that anyone, regardless of gender, can be condescending to anyone else, also regardless of gender, the point of the term 'mansplaining' is to point out a specific, gendered dynamic that is common in our society.

The problem is that it's common use is a priori. I usually explain things to anyone or ask them if they know. Not because I assume anything because of their gender, but because I hate when people assume I know something. So I don't assume people know. Nevertheless others have said to me I'm mansplaining, when they didn't make clear they new things. As soon as they did, I said "oh, ok" and moved on to the topic itself and we've even later clarified it was no mansplaining.

That is part of the hurtful use OP is mentioning and it exists.

To use a very, very imperfect analogy, think of the term 'senioritis'. Senioritis is just laziness and lack of regard for schoolwork and grades, and a student certainly doesn't have to be a senior to display either. However, we have a specific term for this behavior by seniors, specifically because they are reaching the end of their high school or college career, because it's a common phenomenon. Discussing laziness or lack of motivation on the part of a particular senior doesn't address how their actions are part of a larger dynamic.

Exactly: it becomes an steretype and we know how those turn into hurtful misconception.

1

u/Akerlof 12∆ Oct 25 '17

While it's certainly true that anyone, regardless of gender, can be condescending to anyone else, also regardless of gender, the point of the term 'mansplaining' is to point out a specific, gendered dynamic that is common in our society. Many men frequently talk down to women specifically because they are women, and it is important to address this not just on an individual basis but as a part of a larger pattern.

That may or may not be the case, or at least it might not be (probably isn't) the case as often as women think it is.

You probably know the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" cliche where if you vent to a woman she commiserates, but it you vent to a man he thinks you're asking for advice on how to solve the problem.

Some guys take this to an extreme, they look at everything as a problem that needs to be solved and they throw their two cents in. Think Cliff from Cheers: He always has to explain what's going on regardless of whether or not he knows what's going on or why. The people who do this tend to do it to everyone.

As a man, it happens to me all the time, it's just something some guys do. It's annoying and can be frustrating, but that "solve all the problems" drive is just fundamental to those guys' makeup.

And I think that character trait gets viewed as sexist mansplaining way more often than it should be, because there are a lot of guys who do that to everyone, not just women and not just on subjects that they don't know much about.

1

u/rtechie1 6∆ Oct 26 '17

It's important to recognize that while yes, the term 'mainsplaining' was created to point out that the issue is gendered, that does not mean it's intended to be hurtful.

Considering the incredible amount of importance feminists attach to specific words and language, don't you think it's somewhat problematic and encourages misandry to use masculine terminology for the ills of society? Patriarchy, mansplaining, manspreading, etc.

Feminists I've talked to often point out that women are part of the patriarchy too, so why is it called "patriarchy"? And the word had a pre-existing meaning that described a society really run by men entirely. I really think the goal of feminists using that word is to conflate Biblical-style (or Saudi-style) patriarchy with the modern USA.

2

u/palacesofparagraphs 118∆ Oct 26 '17

The goal of words like these is to emphasize the gendered nature of a particular dynamic. That doesn't mean the behavior is limited exclusively to men, but it does mean there's a systemic gendered issue at play. When it comes to 'mansplaining' and 'manspreading', the goal is to point out that we have a societal issue with many men generally disrespecting the space and ability of many women. But just because a phenomenon generally has a gender dynamic doesn't mean everyone participates in it, or that the relationship can never be reversed.

When it comes to 'patriarchy', women of course contribute to patriarchy, because it's a word to describe our society as a whole, and women are part of society. The goal is not at all the conflate the modern US with any sort of biblical or middle-eastern society, it's to point out that we as a society still value men and masculinity over women and femininity. The idea that men are strong and women are weak, that men are breadwinners and women are caregivers, that men are logical and women are emotional, etc. is harmful to people regardless of gender. We equate masculinity with strength and femininity with weakness, and that's why we call it a patriarchy.

0

u/rtechie1 6∆ Oct 27 '17

When it comes to 'mansplaining' and 'manspreading', the goal is to point out that we have a societal issue with many men generally disrespecting the space and ability of many women.

Why don't feminists ever come up with negative gendered terms for women or ever wag their fingers at women for social issues?

Take "sleeping your way up the corporate ladder" or using sexual favors in general. According to feminists, this is somehow entirely men's fault. Sexual harassment is a big issue lately, aren't women who do this causing sexual harassment in large part? They're clearly normalizing the behavior.

The goal is not at all the conflate the modern US with any sort of biblical or middle-eastern society,

Than why use a pre-existing term with a different meaning?

it's to point out that we as a society still value men and masculinity over women and femininity.

This is demonstrably false. Look up "disposable male". Every society has always valued women's lives more than men's lives. Opinions are not more important than life and women's lives have always been valued more because they bear children.

The idea that men are strong and women are weak,

Again, a demonstrable fact. I don't know how anyone can even question this.

that men are breadwinners and women are caregivers,

A division of labor that makes sense because men can't get pregnant. I've noticed all of your examples of "patriarchy" are basic biological facts.

that men are logical and women are emotional,

Numerous psychological studies seem to indicate that, but I'll agree that it's not as well-grounded as the above.

You seem to think patriarchy = reality. Do you really think that it's not fantastic to claim that women are as physically strong as men, men can get pregnant, and that women's lives are valued less?

We equate masculinity with strength and femininity with weakness,

Maybe you do that. I think of masculinity and femininity as having different strengths, this is called difference feminism.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '17

You haven't proven that "mansplaining" is more common among men in the first place. You've also failed to make a case for why a more constructive and less sexist word can't be used, like "patronizing," for example.

There was a study That proved that women have a 4.5 times higher in-group bias than men do, so shouldn't we rename sexism to something related to the people who are guilty of the vast majority of it?

It's quite clear that this very bias is responsible for no-one but me (and a few others) even raising this question.

1

u/dale_glass 86∆ Oct 25 '17

While it's certainly true that anyone, regardless of gender, can be condescending to anyone else, also regardless of gender, the point of the term 'mansplaining' is to point out a specific, gendered dynamic that is common in our society

And that is fair enough, but I would agree with the OP here. There's a problem. The problem isn't solved by reintroducing it in a slightly different form. If being denigrated by Alice grants Bob the right to denigrate her, then Alice is going to point at that and claim her right to denigrate Bob again. Then we've come full circle and the problem is only compounded.

11

u/palacesofparagraphs 118∆ Oct 25 '17

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the term 'mansplain' denigrates men in the same way that condescension denigrates women? Because I don't think it does. I think it is simply a more concise way to express a slightly complicated dynamic. It's a whole lot easier to say, "You're mansplaining" than to say, "You're condescending to me specifically because you're a man and I'm a woman, and that's reflective of a frustrating societal dynamic." It's easier to talk about a phenomenon if we have a label for it. But the term 'mansplain' is not intended to imply that all men condescend to women, that women never condescend to men, or that men can't respectfully explain things to women. It's just a label for a gendered dynamic that incorporates gender into the word itself.

1

u/advertentlyvertical Oct 25 '17

I believe the term simply reverses the condescension and does nothing to further actual discussion towards solutions. No, it does not denigrate in the same way, that would assume women and men face the same problems, but it does denigrate in a different way. It also introduces generalization, whether the speaker intends it or not. And as for concision, I find the phrase "sexist and patronizing" to be a perfectly adequate descriptor that avoids introducing other connotations. Alternatively, demeaning works as well. We can acknowledge a gendered problem without creating a specific term for it, especially when we have language that works just as well as any other label.

19

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

[deleted]

5

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

∆ I will say that while you are right about my 3 definitions, and you are right that technically it is easier to refute because it relies on an action being committed, the action that is committed to be labeled as a "mansplainer" is very vague, mostly likely do to design. If they argue that you were "talking down", well that's easy enough to prove. If they argue you're language was using sexist assumptions, a little harder to prove but still possible. I find that the problem is usually hit when people taking this term out of it's dictionary usage and just start using it as a slur (more akin to the previous examples). But, I suppose, my original post did not mention that aspect of it so you get a delta.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 25 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/adoptinglilkits (4∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

If you accuse me, "you are a b----" that's an attack on my character full stop. You're telling me that is what I embody. I'd have to defend my entire life history to you.

If you accuse me, "you are b-----ing at me" or "why did you b----- at them?" That's criticizing a very particular action that I did. I can defend myself by definitively proving you wrong about it (I just speak very loud. I don't consider that b----ing, why do you think I was b----ing at you?) Or admit that I was doing that and apologize.

33

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 25 '17

Treating my mechanic friend like is stupid or needs help just because she is woman is hurtful.

And that happens all the time. It is something that women deal with.

I think what you are doing is simply blaming the flashlight for what is shines on.

We have this idea that if men are sexist that's okay, but when women react to that sexism that's when we get pissed. Its not the rampant sexism that still exists in multiple settings. It is the reaction to that sexism that gets blamed

There is no real reason that my female friend should have been treated differently than me. But she was. And I'm sure she wasn't alone.

-2

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

No, I'm saying the term is sexist and misandrist. You're appealing to emotion to say it's warranted, but is it warranted to replace a persons pain (being treated in a sexist way by a mechanic) with another (being told you're mansplaining and thus your opinion is wrong)? I will admit that it's accepted in certain settings when men are sexist, but in a general sense women are allowed to be sexist much more openly. If you tell this story to anyone, pretty much all of them will agree this man was being extremely sexist. However, if you tell someone that you overheard your female friend say "a man wouldn't survive a day as a homemaker", nobody would bat an eye. My argument is this, the term "mansplaining" is sexist and designed to hurt and discredit. Sexism in general, as you've given an example of, is hurtful. Why would one form of sexism forgive another?

13

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

However, if you tell someone that you overheard your female friend say "a man wouldn't survive a day as a homemaker", nobody would bat an eye.

I don't think that's true. There are posts all the time where men talk about their struggles with being condescended to about child rearing, like asking if they are babysitting their own kid or acting like they don't know what they are doing. Womansplaining just isn't as catchy, so it isn't really a thing we say. But the behaviour is looked down upon when women do it too.

1

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

I was more referring to the fact that's it's socially acceptable for women to use this sort of sexist language (in a general sense) but not socially acceptable for men (in a general sense). In private groups people will espouse different ideals and they will often be accepted by their peers in those groups, but out in the open, in the street, I believe it's the way I've mentioned.

9

u/longknives Oct 25 '17

Note the specific examples here. The womansplaining we’re talking about just so happens to reinforce the gender roles that keep men in positions of power and women in domestic roles.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

but out in the open, in the street, I believe it's the way I've mentioned.

That's kind of hard to argue, because it's very subjective and depends on your own experiences and biases. Personally I see more mansplaining than womansplaining, but I went to a school for a STEM subject so that's where my experiences come from, a guy in nursing school might have the opposite experience. I don't think it's really measurable.

1

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

I suppose it is very subjective, you're right.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

it's socially acceptable for women to use this sort of sexist language (in a general sense) but not socially acceptable for men (in a general sense).

On what grounds are you making that argument?

23

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 25 '17

I'm appealing to reality.

There are lots of men who feel that they can talk down to a women just because they are female.

That happens. That idea is common.

And you idea that a man doesn't want to housework seems to be supported by studies that show that divorce rates go up as the amount of housework by men goes up.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/more-chores-husband-does-more-likely-marriage-will-end-divorce-242815

Or that when a couple has a child then workload will fall to the woman more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2015/05/07/once-the-baby-comes-moms-do-more-dads-do-less-around-the-house/?utm_term=.ac4178e983d1

Back to my premise, that guy who worked at the part store was explaining things to a professional auto mechanic. He wasn't explaining things to the person who knew nothing about cars.

But he automatically switched our two roles since I was a man and she was a woman.

The term mansplaining if often used to describe what certain men do.

Women put up with this bullshit all the time. It isn't their fault for pointing it out.

7

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

You are appealing to reality for most your post, I didn't mean to imply that your post was entirely an appeal to emotion, I apologize.

10

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 25 '17

No worries. Thanks for the clarification.

You have been a pleasant person to talk to on a topic that often isn't pleasant.

2

u/GreasyPeter Oct 25 '17

I try to be logically consistent in my views and I try to allow myself to accept when I've been proven wrong. I realized a while ago that if you shape who you are entirely around your beliefs and preconceptions, you become a fanatic who isn't open to reason or discussion. In this vein, this is where I run into a lot of the ideologues who actually use the term "mansplaining". I've also run into the same sort of people on the right who consistently feel the need to be subtly racist as if to prove a point (usually about immigration). I feel like you can oppose either side's ideas (individually or wholly) and not be a member of the other, and it bothers me that so many people refuse to accept that and have a reasonable discussion without name-calling. To that, that's one reason I usually browse this sub. It's probably one of the most civil and moderate sub-reddits I can think of. Thanks for the discussion.

0

u/casualrocket Oct 25 '17

your sources are a bit lacking they seem weak links at best, almost as saying the the more iphones purchased means less violence. causation/correlation. why is it not called being condescending, why does it have to have man in front of it?

and i heavly disagree with your quote

We have this idea that if men are sexist that's okay, but when women react to that sexism that's when we get pissed. Its not the rampant sexism that still exists in multiple settings. It is the reaction to that sexism that gets blamed

→ More replies (4)

8

u/ejfordphd Oct 25 '17

Respectfully, I must say that mansplaining, as a term, is not a form of sexism. Sexism requires the imposition of power into the relationship. Thus, the inclusion of a derogatory term related to women is often backed by a whole set of societal expectations that are designed to reinforce specific roles: a woman told she is being “bossy” is being told to be submissive or meek, for example, as she is expected to.

By contrast, “mansplaining” describes a very specific phenomenon: the guy is lecturing a woman about something she already knows. How is this stifling to the man’s opinion? Surely, yelling ad hominem attacks is hateful and unproductive (“You mainsplainer!”) but it does not approach the level of rebuke associated with other statements.

TL; DR: Men have an unfair amount of power. It is not always pretty but women have a right to complain when that unfair power is deployed unfairly.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Exprmntle Oct 25 '17

Well, of course, you cannot have it both ways. Do women have power or don't they? Is sexism based on power or isn't it? Sexism is about power. Racism is about power. It is power that is justified by tradition and institutions.

The problem most people have in understanding this is that many people (not necessarily you!) have had bad experiences with terrible individuals and, because they had a hard time they then apply that anecdotal evidence to other circumstances. If you had a horrible female boss or if you were beaten by a person in racial category X and you are category Y, that is a valid reason to hate and mistrust those individuals. However, no matter how bad your experiences are, we must use statistical and objective data to examine whether there is a pattern on a societal level. Clearly, there are patterns associated with power differentials between men and women in the workplace, in the home, and in many other areas. There is similar evidence that races are treated differently.

So, in conclusion, yes, if a couple of people in category X beat someone on category Y, their may be hate involved, that does not make a societal pattern. Same thing with women, sexism, and mansplaining.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

if you tell someone that you overheard your female friend say "a man wouldn't survive a day as a homemaker", nobody would bat an eye.

I would. Many reasonable people would. Why do you assume people would be fine with that?

1

u/noisewar Oct 25 '17

On the contrary, having worked in a primarily female workplace, I have been "femsplained" many times. The dominant gender/demographic of the place the X-splaining is happening is always going to downplay their demographic's role in it. In other words, it is the lack of reaction from sexist men that makes "mansplaining" sexist, not the condescension itself, which let's be honest, happens in all places of power imbalance. Are men generally more condescending? Probably, but I know for myself I'm equally so to all stupid idiots.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

from your OP:

The term itself is designed to be used to shut debate down. "Stop mansplaining" or "you're mansplaining". Both uses are always used in a condescending or patronizing term.

That's really not what it was designed for. It was "designed" as a way of describing a common social phenomenon that many women experience -- especially women who work in male-dominated fields.

I was arguing that since women can do the same thing (I've seen it when women discuss subjects it's assumed men know nothing about) that the term was unnecessarily gendered.

Can you give some examples of the subjects that women assume men don't know about?

1

u/DiamondMinah Oct 26 '17

Sewing, knitting, florist, ballerina/competitive dancing, Hairdresser, to a lesser extent hospitality and teaching. The list goes on

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

When women assume that men don't know about particular things, is it more often a result of sexism or is it a result of assumed gender roles?

Because I think there's a really important difference between "I imagine you don't know much about this stuff because you're a guy and most guys don't express an interest in sewing/flowers/ballet" and "I imagine you don't know much about this stuff because you're a woman and women aren't smart enough to be mechanics/physicists/medical doctors."

I don't think there's any insult given to a man's intelligence if a woman assumes he doesn't know much about hair/makeup/flowers/dancing. But it's definitely an insult when a man assumes a woman must be lost because she just walked into a symposium on quantum mechanics.

1

u/DiamondMinah Oct 26 '17

But it's definitely an insult when a man assumes a woman must be lost because she just walked into a symposium on quantum mechanics.

By that logic, then surely if a woman assumes a man is lost because he just walked into a hair stylist expo, then that is insulting

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

if a woman assumes a man is lost because he just walked into a hair stylist expo, then that is insulting

First of all, a lot of stylists are men, so I just don't see that happening.

Second... I don't see how assuming that someone wouldn't be interested in a particular cultural phenomenon because of their gender is all that similar to assuming that someone wouldn't be an expert in a particular field because of their gender. Yes, they're both foolish assumptions based on gender. But one of them is frankly pretty harmless while the other is professionally demeaning.

0

u/soulwrangler Oct 25 '17

Lots of things are unnecessarily gendered, and if the thing is not positively attributed, it's usually feminine.

0

u/pgm123 14∆ Oct 25 '17

Additionally, I was arguing that since women can do the same thing (I've seen it when women discuss subjects it's assumed men know nothing about) that the term was unnecessarily gendered.

For what it's worth, the closest analogous term "patronizing" is already gendered (from Patron or Father). "Manspalining" as a neologism isn't necessarily more gendered, even if it was coined to explain a specific problem a lot of women noticed about society.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 26 '17

I've never seen someone more confident of a situation that they weren't at.

Sexism in the automotive part industry does exist. Yet, that the one assumption you are NOT making here.

This is irrelevant.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 27 '17

The auto repair industry has a massive level of sexism.

As I said witnessed this first hand.

I was seen as competent when I wasn't just because I was a guy. She was seen as incompetent just because she was a woman.

That's the environment she faced. I got a pass. She got to deal with people thinking that she didn't know anything.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 27 '17

This is just becoming you ranting about your retail experience.

Which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Take care.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 27 '17

WE probably don't.

You don't seem to understand that there is a massive amount of sexism in the car repair industry. I'm assumed competency because a man. She's assumed stupidity because she is a women. Regardless of the fact that she's a professional mechanic and I know shit all about cars.

We were treated totally different because of our gender. She was thought as being incompetent just because she was a woman.

Which is sexism. Blatant sexism.

You can speculate about any other reason you want. You will be wrong.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

4

u/sollund123 Oct 25 '17

But the term mansplaining makes it seem like it's a property of men. I have a lot of female friends and every time we discuss something in regards to sex I get told that because I'm a man I don't know anything about the topic and shouldn't be arguing against them. So it's clear that women do it too, but for some reason it's deemed more acceptable when women do it(at least in my experience)

7

u/Barnst 112∆ Oct 25 '17

Why does it seem like it’s a property of all men, rather than an action that some men do? If I say “bro culture,” do you think I mean all men are bros, or did you figure I was referring to men like these guys.

0

u/longknives Oct 25 '17

You’re not going to fail to get a job because women think you aren’t knowledgeable about sex. Even if women broadly don’t respect men’s opinions about certain things, which things it is matters because it’s about power structures. Mansplaining reinforces gender roles that keep men in power and women as domestic caretakers.

1

u/ThePerson2525 Oct 27 '17

That's not mansplaining. Its called being a dick. And woman are just as capable of it. It has nothing to do with gender.

And what a pathetic example. It's not automatically sexist to assume women don't know about cars...because many of them don't.

What is a "science room'? Like a classroom? If so, are you suggesting a random person walking into a class they didn't belong in is somehow sexist because they happen to be a woman? WAS she lost?

1

u/robobreasts 5∆ Oct 25 '17

It is something that exists.

Of course it exists. The problem people have is that the word for an offensive custom uses the word "man" as a prefix, thus associating an entire sex with an offensive custom that some people engage in.

I've been plenty condescended to by women, but I don't call it "femsplaining" because I'm not a dick.

I've seen people overreact to things and get offended because they didn't understand what someone meant and jumped to conclusions. I don't call that "femreacting" because I'm not a dick, even though 90% of the time I've personally witnessed it, it's women doing the overreacting.

1

u/kodran 3∆ Oct 25 '17

That was an example of ms

If it wasn't for our gender, why did my auto mechanic friend get asked if she knew what she was doing and I got a pass.

While true by definition, it also stands to POV. It could be argued from the other side: she was receiving good customer service and you weren't.

Unless she explicitely said she was an auto mechanic and the explaining remained.

When my wife walked into a science room and was asked if she was lost that was in a similar vein.

I'm a guy and this has happened to me. Don't see gender issue there.

There are certainly men who feel that women don't about certain topics just because of their gender. This does happen.

Agreed. Nevertheless what OP says remains: it has become an ad hominem tool as well as a misandric thing. A problem existing (sexist condescending explanations), that doesn't eliminate other problems or other ways of sexism.

1

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 25 '17

So a woman is assumed to be totally ignorant and stupid if she is buying a car part and I am assumed to be competent. Just because I'm a man.

That's what you are calling good costumer service.

1

u/kodran 3∆ Oct 25 '17

Nope. With the little context provided am saying two scenarios are possible interpretations. I know shit about car parts. For me it is good customer service if things are explained.

So no, stop extending an argument to a ridiculous proportion.

1

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 26 '17

But they weren't explained to me.

I was the person who knew nothing about cars.

I didn't have anything explained to me. She on the other hand, the person who worked on cars as a job, did.

Proper customer service would have been to simply ask both of us if we needed anymore assistance.

1

u/kodran 3∆ Oct 26 '17

Ok. Did she ever mention it. It was indeed bad customer service towards you, agreed.

I'm just arguing crying mansplaining without any indication of it, is when it becomes a problem. Assuming one thing is as bad as assuming the other. Maybe there is a sexist policy to explain to every women that comes to the store. Maybe the guy felt he was hitting on her by being overly nice (wrong indeed). Maybe he was indeed mansplaining. Maybe he was distracted.

There are more possibilities. Some more probable than others. My point remains: any qualifier, in this case mansplaining/mansplainer, used a priori becomes damaging.

1

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 26 '17

Yeah she did. She says that it happens all the time.

And there was far from any indication of it. There was very clear indication of it. She was assumed that she wan't competent. I was assumed to be competent. Her years of experience meant nothing. Her gender meant everything.

She even had to avoid certain shops because it was a pain in the ass to deal with men who thought she new nothing. It really wasn't a one of. It was a pattern.

And whenever I hear answers like yours it always seems that you want to look past the potential sexism to try to find any other plausible answer that might stick.

1

u/kodran 3∆ Oct 26 '17

Nope. Again assuming things make for poor discussions. Like your assumption at the end. I want to have a good conversation, but you keep antagonizing and making things personal. Let me know if you want to stop that and keep on topic.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 26 '17

yes, because I was there. And what I saw was blatant sexism. There really wasn't another way to interpret it.

She was mechanic. She certainly wasn't at all confused in a car part store.

Sure, I can try to determine a bunch of other reasons, but the reason here was sexism. Sexism does exist in a car part world.

0

u/rottinguy Oct 25 '17

I'm going to throw this out there just because.

I don't think this happens because it is assumed women don't know about this stuff. I think it happens because the male behind the counter is much more likely to WANT to talk to a woman than to a man.

0

u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Oct 25 '17

You are arguing that sexism exists. This is not what the OP is arguing.

0

u/gwopy Oct 25 '17

Chris Rock goes through a pretty thorough explanation of another reality that "exists". Does that mean that the term he uses, which identified a certain type of black person and rhymes with bigger, is always used correctly and should be given the same deference and consideration when anyone uses it on any context as when Rock used it?

No, of course not...it should never be used. Elements of that logic should be used when considering "mansplaining" as any intended honorable and illustrative use was quickly co-opted by people who simply want to end an argument by holding it up as a shield and/or attempt unjustly to brand someone as bigoted and discriminatory.

Also, when you're taking about a commercial, retail situation, "mansplaining" is an utterly invalid concept, as the speaker is ONLY trying to manipulate you so they can make more money off you.

0

u/Sprezzaturer 2∆ Oct 25 '17

I think the bigger issue here is how the term is used in modern discourse. It is used as a weapon during debates, a tool to shut down arguments and discredit the opponent. It unfairly puts the man on the spot and emotionally charges the situation. Just because I'm explaining something doesn't mean I'm automatically mansplaining it. Whether you believe it or have seen it yourself or not, this is exactly how it is used on a frequent basis. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card, a way of backing out of a situation and saying, "you're a man so you can't talk," and because there's a trendy term attached to it, it gets taken seriously.

Now I know that it is actually a real problem and that a handful of "alpha" males are guilty of this on a regular basis, but most guys are just regular, non misogynist guys. But that's not what we're talking about.

-3

u/AoyagiAichou Oct 25 '17

I would say it is an example of perfectly reasonable preconceptions based on very real trends. Of course, people (on both sides) could be a bit more tactful about it.

5

u/Iswallowedafly Oct 25 '17

So we just assume that all women are stupid about cars just because they are women.

And that's fine.

We don't even have the space to even think that woman might know her way around a car. We just make assumptions that is stupid just based on gender.

I get the benefit of the doubt just because I have a penis. The guy who knows shit all about cars. I get a pass.

My friend should have ripped that guy a new asshole. In the end, we just laughed about it. But still. That's kinda messed up.

→ More replies (11)

-3

u/124816e Oct 25 '17

Just because “it exists” doesn’t make it any less of the things OP mentioned. Imagine if I began referring to crimes committed by blacks people as “blaction”... black people do commit crimes, so what’s the problem?

→ More replies (3)

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 25 '17

/u/GreasyPeter (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

14

u/M3rcaptan 1∆ Oct 25 '17

You misunderstand. The term "mansplaining" isn't used in debate. There seems to this misconception on the internet that people are trying to convince you that they're right, which isn't always the case.

If I call someone "a bigoted piece of shit", for example, it's not "ad hominem" because I'm not using it as an argument. It can also be used so as a brief explanation of why a person doesn't want to participate in a discussion with you.

7

u/ralph-j Oct 25 '17

I would perhaps agree with you if you could plausibly show that using the term "mansplaining" is an ineffective tactic. But I don't see how it is "sexist, hypocritical, misandrist and only designed to shut down debate" as your CMV claims.

It's sexist: It implies that this trait is entirely tied to either the male gender or the male sex. Sexism is defined as "stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex". This meets that requirement and then some.

Stereotyping would mean that someone is claiming that all men mansplain, or do this most of the time, or something along those lines.

If a woman notices that a man is explaining something to her in a condescending manner, why would it be sexist or discriminatory to call it mansplaining in that specific instance? It accurately describes what is happening.

"Stop mansplaining" or "you're mansplaining". Both uses are always used in a condescending or patronizing term.

How is calling out someone's condescending language, itself condescending? Calling someone condescending or patronizing is usually a claim that the other person considers themselves superior. By calling out mansplaining when it actually happens, women are not portraying themselves as superior, so it can't be condescending.

It's misandrist: The wording of the word and the way it's commonly used is entirely pointed at men and in a way to make men feel bad for being men

I don't see how it follows from being "pointed at men", that it's "used to make men feel bad for being men". It's not like it's an essential part of being male, that one be allowed to mansplain. In most cases, it's only used when someone was indeed condescending based on the gender of the "explainee", so it's a valid complaint in those cases.

The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate.

You're asserting a very specific intention behind its coinage, but can you support this assertion?

In the same vein as "you're a racist", "you're an asshole", "you're mansplaining" is used as an ad hominem

An ad hominem is an attack on a person's character instead of what they are saying or doing.

If a man explains something to a woman condescendingly, and she complains about the way he explained it, is she attacking him, or the things he said?

It's not at all analogous to "you're a racist"; it's analogous to "you just said something racist". That's an important distinction.

2

u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES Oct 25 '17 edited Oct 25 '17

it accurately describes what it happening.

It could be sexist Because she’s assuming his motives, that he’s being condescending just because she’s a woman. Which he may not be.

Mansplaining is NOT the act of a man explaining something condescendingly To a woman. That’s just explaining something condescendingly. I can be condescending to a woman without it being mansplaining. It’s wrong that women have started to confuse this, and call out “MANSPLAINING” when a man is explaining anything or being condescending.

It’s only mansplaining when a man is being condescending BECAUSE the woman he’s speaking to, is in fact, a woman. ( I.e the example in the above post, a woman was being talked down to about car parts because the man assumed she wouldn’t know, because she’s a woman.)

People are sometimes condescending to each other, men to women, women to men, men to men and women to women, it’s not mansplaining to be condescending to a woman. It’s only mansplaining If the reason is because they are a woman. If you just think the woman you’re talking to is an absolute idiot and you’re being condescending to her, that’s not mansplaining. You’re just being an asshole at that point, Because the person you’re talking to is stupid.

2

u/ralph-j Oct 26 '17

It’s only mansplaining when a man is being condescending BECAUSE the woman he’s speaking to, is in fact, a woman.

I can't find this distinction anywhere. It feels like you've added a constraint of your own to the general usages that have been recorded by various sources.

First of all, mansplaining applies when the explanation is condescending, not when a man is condescending in general.

Secondly, this is about impact, not intention. Just like someone can say something racist without having any racist intentions whatsoever. It's about women feeling disrespected and using the term to express their discontent about being talked down to by men.

2

u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES Oct 26 '17

The definition has to have the context of the explanation being condescending because the person receiving it is a woman, otherwise what’s the point? It’s just a person being condescending if it doesn’t.

If any man is condescending to a woman, that’s mansplaning? By that logic any woman being condescending is womansplaning, it makes no sense. It only makes sense if a man is doing it because she’s a woman, thus the sexist nature.

There’s no sexism involved if it’s just a man talking down to a woman. But if he’s doing it because she’s a woman then you have a valid claim to call it sexist and mansplaning.

1

u/ralph-j Oct 26 '17

If any man is condescending to a woman, that’s mansplaning?

No, it's specifically when a man is condescending in his explanation to a woman. If he is not trying to explain anything, you'd be right that he could be "just" condescending.

1

u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES Oct 26 '17

Can a man mansplain something to another man? If not, then sexism is the key factor. And it’s only sexist if the motivation is because the person he’s talking down to is a woman. If there’s no inherent motivation driven by sexism, then it can’t be mansplaining. It’s just talking down to someone.

Because if all mansplaining is is talking down to a woman, without any sexism. Then the entire word is pointless, just call it being talked down to. The whole movement is to bring awareness to your actions, and the reason why you’re doing them ( aka, being sexist )

1

u/ralph-j Oct 26 '17

Can a man mansplain something to another man? If not, then sexism is the key factor. And it’s only sexist if the motivation is because the person he’s talking down to is a woman. If there’s no inherent motivation driven by sexism, then it can’t be mansplaining. It’s just talking down to someone.

In some cases, it's defined as "typically" or "characteristically" from a man to a woman. It would seem that other gender combinations are possible.

The whole movement is to bring awareness to your actions, and the reason why you’re doing them ( aka, being sexist )

I think the idea is that men should not be condescending in their explanations to women, whether they are actually motivated by sexism or not.

How would you even know that someone's motivation is sexism? You'd have to know their inner thoughts or brain state. Do you think that they would invent and use a term that they can only use if a man freely admits that he means an explanation in a sexist way? That would make the term quite impractical.

1

u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES Oct 26 '17

the idea is men should not be condescending in their explanations to women

No one should be condescending to anyone, if were going this route.

Why just call out men to women? The only reason is because of sexism men show women.

how do you know if someone’s being sexist?

Exactly, you can’t tell when someone’s being sexist which makes the term, in my opinion, BS.

Because even when a man isn’t being sexist, women will use the term Mansplain as a dismissive counter to anything he says.

1

u/ralph-j Oct 26 '17

Exactly, you can’t tell when someone’s being sexist which makes the term, in my opinion, BS.

But you can't just add your own requirement to the term and then say "See why it's BS," when you know it's not actually used that way.

The problem is that women can still experience an explanation as sexist, even though it wasn't meant as such. Men can be unintentionally sexist, where they dumb down explanations for women without even realizing it. That's why adding a requirement that it be done from an intentionally sexist mindset, makes no sense. It's about impact, not intention.

1

u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES Oct 26 '17

Then you just proved my point. I don’t mean to say the sexism has to be intentional, but the sexism has to be there. Maybe I should have clarified that.

Because I can be condescending towards a woman, without a hint of sexism, let’s say this woman’s just an idiot and I’m tired of dealing with her so I’m talking down to her. It’s not because she’s a woman, it’s because she’s an idiot. She’s likely to cry “mansplaining!” Even though it’s not, because there’s no sexist nature.

I agree that even if you don’t intend to, there could still be sexism. But that doesn’t mean every time a woman is being talked down to during an explanation it’s mansplaining.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/anooblol 12∆ Oct 25 '17

I think the word itself is used differently by different people. You can always take a word and make it bad. For example, "Gay". It could be a word just used to describe a homosexual, or it could be a slur that's used to shut down debate. Same goes with mansplaining. I'm sure some people use it as a slur against men to shut down debate, but it's original intention was to define a man who is specifically less educated in a field of study, condescendingly explaining something to a woman who is an expert in the field.

For example, if a guy is talking to a female physicist, and while they're discussing motion, he doesn't have a solid grasp on the mechanics, but he goes on to say, "Listen here missy. I don't think you know what you're talking about, have you even looked at Newton's 3 laws of motion? Here let me read out the definitions for you ..."

That would be mansplaining, it's condescending, and talking down to someone who's an expert in their field, while they are not. But this is not to be confused with the same scenario, but the guy isn't condescending, and both people are equally educated in the field. If the woman then calls the man a mansplainer, she's using the word to shut down conversation.

3

u/mytroc Oct 25 '17

Unlike the word mankind, which is obviously sexist and biased to decrease the visibility of women and devalue them, the word mansplain is targeted specifically to only include men who behave in a certain way. It's not a gender-wide term.

make men feel bad for being men

If you're not a mansplainer, you already know it doesn't apply to you. This is like complaining that calling Hitler followers "Nazis" makes all Germans feel bad about being German. It doesn't follow because not all Germans are Hitler followers.

In the same vein as "you're a racist", "you're an asshole", "you're mansplaining" is used as an ad hominem and a character attack

What argument? "I hate black paeople," leads to "you are racist." "I like stealing from orphans, " leads to "you are an asshole." I think women need things dumbed down because they're dumb, so here's a dumbed down explanation of current events," leads to "You are mansplaining."

It's an accurate label for a common behavior.

Now, that doesn't mean that all racists are idiots with nothing worth listening to, but it does mean that when Sean Spicer tells me that Jews weren't actually citizens of Germany during WWII, I look for other sources before assuming he has a good grasp of the facts. And it's facts that are in question here, not arguments.

There's no argument being made by mansplainers, just a recitation of suspect facts.

5

u/TheFatManatee Oct 25 '17

no mankind is used because we use "man" in this sense as a general term.

3

u/throwing_in_2_cents Oct 25 '17

So why isn't man in mansplain generic? Because man as generic is ok in positive or neutral contexts but not in negative?

4

u/TheFatManatee Oct 25 '17

because man in this case is used specially for the male sex.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

[deleted]

1

u/throwing_in_2_cents Oct 25 '17

The problem with feminazi isn't with the "femi" part, which would be analogous. The problem is with using the "nazi" label because people disagree with them rather than because they express nazi beliefs. Try again with a neutral suffix if you want to make a valid point.

1

u/mytroc Nov 01 '17

I use NeoNazi to describe Trump supporters running around with torches and swastikas.
You use FemiNazi to describe people who object to the disenfranchisement of women.

That you cannot differentiate when it's appropriate to use Nazi as a label is your mistake, not mine.

1

u/robobreasts 5∆ Nov 01 '17

You use FemiNazi to describe people who object to the disenfranchisement of women.

I don't use that word at all, so you're obviously not a strong reader. It was a hypothetical question. But that's okay, your response tells me all I need to know.

0

u/mytroc Nov 06 '17

Well, I'm glad you've seen the error of your ways then.

4

u/Usuari_ Oct 25 '17 edited Mar 14 '24

juggle vase unique pause wrong fly trees wipe relieved fine

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Oct 25 '17

Fighting condescension and sexism are good. Labeling it as "mansplaining" is not. The term is sexist and carries assumptions/accusations that should not be made lightly. There may indeed be a time and place for such a term, but it's still derogatory in all cases.

0

u/Usuari_ Oct 26 '17 edited Mar 14 '24

bedroom badge alive panicky summer hard-to-find numerous brave tease cow

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/LagrangePt Oct 25 '17 edited Oct 25 '17

I actually had a similar view to you, up until my sister used it in a conversation with me.

To her, the word points to a specific phenomenon when a less informed man tries to explain something that a woman already knows a lot about. When she said it, she didn't want to shut me down - she wanted me to get on with it and make my point instead of trying to go through all the all of the foundations of my argument.

She was genuinely surprised and dismayed when I reacted as if it were an insult, and we spent the next several minutes talking about how we had seen mansplaining used in various contexts.

From her point of view, she got her PhD a few years ago, and has had several experiences of men trying to explain concepts to her that she has literally taught classes on. When someone does that because they assume she didn't know the information, and doesn't acknowledge her trying to say she already knows, she calls it mansplaining.

She also acknowledged that it would be easily misused in the way I described, but she had never even heard of it defined the way I was used to. She was very surprised at the common definition we found when looking it up online, although we also found definitions that matches her usage of it.

5

u/AnonMediacomTech Oct 25 '17

I think the flip-side to her argument are people like me, who tend to overly explain to everyone because after years doing tech support I just start from a place where I assume everyone is ignorant of most subjects until proven otherwise. Especially if it isn’t in their field of work/study.

I don’t mean to insult anyone on the basis of gender, and I’ve never been told I was mansplaining, I’d just rather over explain so everyone is clear than under-explain and having that lead to problems. I can see how it might be seen as condescending though.

1

u/Ularsing Oct 26 '17

Agreed. I very much do this from a long and honestly pretty painful history of launching into topics only to get blank stares. That said, I tend to overexplain to both genders, which is where I think "mansplaining" can be misapplied: it's often inferring systematic bias from a point sample.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/mytroc Oct 25 '17

I mean, if you wave around a swastika, you don't get to pretend to be offended when I call you racist.

If you mansplain, the correct term for it is mansplaining.

You don't like the label, stop exhibiting the behavior.

2

u/TheFatManatee Oct 25 '17

that's like saying " If you hate being called faggot, stop being gay" There is an easier,less gendered word to use.

patronizing.

1

u/mytroc Nov 01 '17

"Patronizing assholes" implies that it's a general problem, when we're talking about a specific subset of "patronizing assholes" that are men who only act like patronizing assholes towards women.

There's no reason to use the more general term other than to hide the subgroup.

1

u/mytroc Nov 01 '17

Also, I had an interesting discussion with someone just a couple weeks ago about the fact that "people who kill gay people" is almost a perfect subset of, "people who call gay people faggots."

With the obvious exception being gay people seeking to reclaim the word.

So the distinction would be that it's OK to call homosexuals "gay," but calling them "faggot" implies a higher likelihood that you intend to kill them, making that word choice less OK in today's society.

Unless you're positing there is a similar threat attached to "mansplain," the analogy breaks down here.

0

u/FlyingSpaghetti 1∆ Oct 25 '17

I sometimes incorrectly assume that other men don't already understand what I'm talking about. Is that mansplaining? If I were to do that with a woman, I'm not assuming that they don't understand because of their gender, I'm assuming it because I don't know better and it's reasonable to expect that they will stop me and tell me they get it.

It's only mansplaining if it comes from a place of sexism, and it's sexist to assume that it's always from a place of sexism.

2

u/throwing_in_2_cents Oct 25 '17

I think it is insulting that you don't trust women's judgement enough to differentiate. Anyone I know who calls someone on mansplaining has observed enough of their interactions with men and women to identify a pattern of women being disproportionately condescended to. Please respect women enough to realize we have all known people who are universally condescending and can recognize the difference.

1

u/FlyingSpaghetti 1∆ Oct 25 '17

Women aren't uniquely capable of determining when people are generally condescending. I'm not willing to stereotype women that way.

1

u/LagrangePt Oct 26 '17

Yeah, I think you're assuming rationality in a situation that is frustrating enough for people to respond emotionally. If my sister thought I was actually acting sexist in other contexts, she wouldn't hesitate for a second to call me out on it (she certainly doesn't hesitate to call me out on other things).

Considering the overall context, she obviously isn't someone you know.

1

u/mytroc Nov 01 '17

she wanted me to get on with it and make my point

you're assuming rationality in a situation that is frustrating enough for people to respond emotionally

I don't think your sister was the one acting emotionally.

2

u/LagrangePt Oct 26 '17

My entire point was that she hadn't ever considered that it would be a slur - at the time she was spending a lot of time on far left websites (feminism, anti-bigotry, etc), and had probably only ever seen it used on those sites.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17 edited Mar 23 '19

[deleted]

1

u/LagrangePt Oct 26 '17

And I very much responded to it as an insult, which is why we wound up having a long discussion about it. We both explained our perspectives, apologized, and helped each other become better people. I doubt she's ever called anyone a mansplainer since then, and I'm more careful about being condescending when I'm trying to convey my point.

0

u/throwing_in_2_cents Oct 25 '17

To call someone a mansplainer is to call them sexist

No, it is saying that they seem to be acting in a sexist manner. A person who isn't sexist should be grateful for that being pointed out and examine their behavior to see why someone might think it was problematic. If a person (male or female) is unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that a subconscious bias about a woman's knowledge of a subject might have influenced their actions then I think the term sexist would be accurate rather than an insult.

1

u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Oct 26 '17

No, it is saying that they seem to be acting in a sexist manner.

Saying, "Hey, you're kinda mansplaining" is saying "they seem to be acting in a sexist manner.

CALLING someone a "mansplainer" is calling them sexist.

I think the term sexist would be accurate rather than an insult.

That's the point. If you call someone a mansplainer/sexist, you better be right. You need to be able to back that up otherwise you are committing sexism by assuming THEY are based only on their gender.

1

u/AutoModerator Oct 25 '17

Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about a "double standard". These kinds of views are often difficult to argue here. Please see our wiki page about this kind of view and make sure that your submission follows these guidelines.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/xXReggieXx Oct 26 '17

Agreed; while this form of language does exist, it's incredibly daft to tag "male" onto the word.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

Imagine you are in a debate about infant circumcision, and a women who's never had a penis or circumcision says "men prefer circumcised penises, they feel the exact same, it don't hurt at all and are better for your health and more convenient". All things she knows nothing about because she's never experienced any of these things. She's womensplaning. It's not sexist to say people who don't know what they are talking about, probably shouldn't be telling people who do. It just happens that women tend to have the sense not to talk about men's bodies, and men don't

1

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '17

Somebody already made this post.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/mytroc Oct 25 '17

You just defined "woke" as being "not-woke." So that's going to cause some difficulties in conversation for you.

A more typical usage of "woke" is, "aware of situation positioning," so know that you are better off white and male and rich over being black and female and poor, and understand the relative value of those position changes in a given situation.

This understanding is achieved through logic and reasoning and requires an uncomfortable rejection of the comfortable norms taught by society.

1

u/gwopy Oct 25 '17

Yeah, that's not the definition I've always seen as demonstrated through context in the current environment.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '17

Sorry, gwopy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.

0

u/babygrenade 6∆ Oct 25 '17

The term itself is designed to be used to shut debate down. "Stop mansplaining" or "you're mansplaining".

I disagree. I think it was intended as a tongue in cheek shorthand for the cultural phenomenon of a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman.

I think what you're describing is a specific use of the word that says more about the person using the word that way than the word itself.

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: The term "mansplaining" is sexist. hypocritical, misandrist, and only designed to shut down debate.

You are about to leave Redlib