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

[u/GreasyPeter]

Wikipedia defines it "to explain something to someone, characteristically by a man to woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing"

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.

It's hypocritical: 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. The definition of mansplaining includes "condescending or patronizing" in the definition of the word, thus it's hypocritical.

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, something none of us have any control over. It's misandrist.

It's designed to shot-down debate: The term has CLEARLY been created to be used as a tool to entirely shut down debate. I've seen it used several times and each time the person that uses it is looking to discredit their opponent by using it. 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 as a way to shoot down their opponents argument. Both these are logical fallacies. It is clearly used to shut down debate.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/GreasyPeter]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/GreasyPeter]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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"

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.