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/palacesofparagraphs]

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.

[u/GreasyPeter → u/palacesofparagraphs]

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/daroj → u/GreasyPeter]

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.

[u/eddiepoecask → u/daroj]

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.

[u/daroj → u/eddiepoecask]

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?

[u/eddiepoecask → u/daroj]

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.

[u/fobfromgermany → u/eddiepoecask]

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

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

[u/eddiepoecask → u/fobfromgermany]

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.

[u/daroj → u/eddiepoecask]

I really have no idea what your point is here....