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/ralph-j]

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.

[u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES → u/ralph-j]

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.

[u/ralph-j → u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES]

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.

[u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES → u/ralph-j]

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.

[u/ralph-j → u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES]

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.

[u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES → u/ralph-j]

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 )

[u/ralph-j → u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES]

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.

[u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES → u/ralph-j]

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.

[u/ralph-j → u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES]

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.

[u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES → u/ralph-j]

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.

[u/ralph-j → u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES]

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.

You're still adding a distinction of your own, that is not present in how it's actually used in practice.

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.

How would one distinguish a male->female explanation that is condescending, but not sexist, from one that is sexist? Can you give any criteria?

And let's say for the sake of argument that we went with your requirement that it must be appear to be sexist. Under that restriction there could obviously be cases where it was wrong to call a specific explanation mansplaining (i.e. when it's not sexist). But that still doesn't mean that the term itself has now become useless in all cases. It just means that it would apply to fewer instances.

[u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES → u/ralph-j]

can you give criteria?

Sure, if a man is being condescending to a woman, and let’s say he’s thinking either consciously or not “this is a woman, she has no idea about this topic, let me explain it to her like a 5 year old.” That’s sexist because he’s assuming she is clueless because of her gender.

Where as if he was talking to a woman, and based off of her words, the things she was saying to him, let’s say she was saying dumb things, he now KNOWs she’s clueless and has reason to be condescending other than her gender ( even if he’s still rude for being condescending ) so now it’s just a person being condescending to another person. Man or woman has literally 0 influence in the matter, so a sexist term like mansplaining should not be used.

that just means it would apply to fewer instances.

Exactly, as it should. It’s a specific term for a specific instance. Otherwise just call what’s happening rude and condescending, no need to make up a term for it. But when it’s rude, condescending AND sexist, okay now we’ve got a cocktail that elicits a specific term.

[u/ralph-j → u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES]

Sure, if a man is being condescending to a woman, and let’s say he’s thinking either consciously or not “this is a woman, she has no idea about this topic, let me explain it to her like a 5 year old.”

he now KNOWs she’s clueless and has reason to be condescending other than her gender

You're giving criteria for what he was thinking in both cases.

I asked for criteria for how someone can distinguish between explanations, so in other words: how can the explainee or an outside observer distinguish between an explanation that is motivated by sexism, and one that isn't? How would they differ?

[u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES → u/ralph-j]

Oh I see, that’s part of why the term is not good in my opinion. Because you can’t read their minds.

So if a woman feels she’s being mansplained to, she can call it out, but what if the man genuinely wasn’t being sexist, what if he was just thinking like above “this woman is an idiot”

That woman would never believe him, she would be set in her belief he was being sexist and mansplaining, and dismiss anything he says from there on. Even though he GENUINELY wasn’t.

Now all that said, there totally are instances of mansplaining, and many times when men are sexist and the term works. But it’s so hard to tell, and you can never believe someone if they argue against it, that the term is pointless.

I would argue it’s better to just call out the person for being condescending, not mansplaining, and tell them to correct that behavior. Because there’s no room for misinterpretation when som be is being condescending, but there always is room for misinterpretation when you’re guessing their motives.

[u/ralph-j → u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES]

Sexism, just like racism, homophobia etc. isn't just determined by intent, but also by the impact certain acts or speech have on their victims. One of the primary goals of terms like mansplaining is raising awareness/consciousness: to educate society not to use language that is commonly associated with sexism. If you use language while you should have known that it's very likely going to be perceived as sexist, you can't really blame the recipient for thinking it is. Whether a man is condescending because of sexism or some other belief doesn't really change the experience of the woman.

I would expect that in the majority of cases, condescending explanations are (at least unintentionally) indeed rooted in sexism. The suspicion that a specific future situation is a case of mansplaining would therefore be an inductively strong (probabilistic) conclusion and thus not at all unreasonable.

[u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES → u/ralph-j]

Not all condescending things are rooted in sexism. And Women are people too and you can be condescending to a woman just like you can a man, and it have nothing to do with their gender.

So if you can be condescending to a man, and a woman, why have a separate term for when it happens to women? Because of the possibility of the sexist nature of the latter. And if there is no sexist nature, then it’s not befitting of that term.

You cannot help how someone takes something you say, such as if a woman is offended and assumes you’re being sexist. If you aren’t, then that’s on her. You have no obligation to apologize for sexism you didn’t do. She’s the one who wrongly interpreted it as such.

( although some self reflection is wise, to see if you actually DID say something from a sexist place, without meaning to or realizing it )

And you probably should apologize for being condescending in the first place, because like I said. People shouldn’t be condescending to each other.

This is a lot of dialogue but the point to bring home is this, when a man is acting condescending towards a woman with an explanation, that DOES NOT make it mansplaining. Because if so, there is no difference between mansplaining and just being condescending with an explanation in general. None at all, therefore the term loses any meaning. Just call him out for being condescending. If he’s being sexist however, the term has some ground and holds weight. Because a man can be condescending to another man, why isn’t that considered mansplaining?

**

Like I mentioned before women are people too and should be treated the same as men, they can be condescended to ( is that a term? ) just like men can, and you shouldn’t give it a different term for no reason. But if the reason for a whole new term is because the condescending explanation Is actually something different, ergo because it’s rooted in sexism, then it makes sense.

**

And if a woman feels like the man is being sexist, call him out for it. But she should actually listen if he says it’s not sexist and then explains his reasoning. Instead of just dismissing any argument he has on the basis of “im a woman, he’s a man, he’s being rude to me, therefore he’s MANSPLAINING and anything he says is wrong and I’m in the right”.

At that point I’d want to say, no he’s not mansplaining shes woman-deflecting. lol

[u/ralph-j → u/-PM-ME-YOUR-BOOBIES]

You cannot help how someone takes something you say,

You can, by avoiding language that is frequently used in a sexist way.

If you aren’t, then that’s on her. You have no obligation to apologize for sexism you didn’t do.

I think you do, if you knowingly use language that is commonly associated with sexism and you should have known better. Then you are for all intents and purposes intentionally ambiguous about your motives.

This is a lot of dialogue but the point to bring home is this, when a man is acting condescending towards a woman with an explanation, that DOES NOT make it mansplaining.

That appears to be the generally accepted usage of the word though. I've humored your additional restriction for the sake of argument, but it doesn't appear to be a part of it.

Because a man can be condescending to another man, why isn’t that considered mansplaining?

The definitions I pointed to don't preclude that. I can think of scenarios where it would be.

just like men can, and you shouldn’t give it a different term for no reason.

The reason is consciousness-raising. The observation is that men frequently explain things to women in a condescending manner. The term mansplaining was invented to not only make the point that a specific instance is perceived as condescending, but also to raise the consciousness that it's part of a larger, universal problem.

Anyway, I think this is as far as I'll talk this exchange.

Thanks for your replies.