So proud!
-
So I’ve noticed this post isn’t going over very well. I’d like to add a female perspective.
“Mansplain” isn’t meant to say you info dump or over explain a thing. It means that you assume you know more simply based on sex. It’s a type of misogyny that’s more typically overt in boomer culture, but it’s got a following in the whole Tate movement. I have rarely noticed it outside of that generation in the wild.
Now…Guys do infodump, which leads to this confusion, because a lot of people dislike that behavior too. Statistically women do speak less in mixed groups. Put it all together and it’s easy for people to over generalize a very specific behavior. It does happen, but compared to previous generations it’s not as common. It definitely occurs to women who work in non-traditional fields and take on non-traditional roles and I suspect that the same is true for men.
Infodumping male here, I generally do it because in my mind context is important to make sense, and of course I do it regardless of gender. It honestly feels like a detriment, as I feel myself taking too long, but don't really know how to shorten it. I do it when explaining issues at work or when talking about stuff I like etc, but have audio has times where I tried to be brief then got the wrong info across or forgot to mention something important or just right make sense. It's like I can't find the right balance between explaining and dumping.
I didn't find this post as an insult or anything though.
-
absolutely i have both started conversations like that and had friends start conversations like that, specifically about the video game expedition 33 and specifically because of a concern about spoiling the media
Tbh I hadn't considered spoilers and imo that kinda makes sense, but outside of that context I think I just need a different communication style. I'd never feel comfortable around people if I had to do that for convos about anything other than spoilers.
And I guess spoilers really don't hit as hard with documentaries, which I never really considered until this comment.
-
The post says "basic things"
In addition to "basic" being relative, I was also speaking more generally about the concept, not purely about the exact post.
-
I'm memestealing this!
From one thief to another, cool.
-
I genuinely don’t understand what difference it makes. She began to explain, implying she hadn’t said she was the author of the book he had locked and loaded. He cut her off. This could either be excitement on the topic they both had interest in or a slightly rude faux pas.
If she said “yep, heard of that book — I wrote it” and he said “you can’t be the author — you’re a woman” the misogyny would be obvious.
The fact that one person cut another off in one conversation doesn’t mean every time a man opens his mouth he’s “mansplaining”. Or maybe it does, since the definition seems to mean whatever the speaker wishes it to be. Bringing me back to my first post.
Cutting her off was definitely rude, but I agree that it's silly to ask everyone you meet if they wrote each book you want to discuss with them.
If you had something like
Alice: I've been researching a guy recently, do you know anything about him?
Bob: I recently read a book about him, have you heard of it?
Alice: I wrote that book.
Bob: Wow, cool to meet you. I really liked your work!
Bob still assumes that Alice didn't write the book until told otherwise, but he doesn't cut her off, and this conversation is perfectly pleasant.
-
Tricky - basic is very contextual. Basic to an electrician isn't basic to a plumber!
Right, so a man talking to a woman in the same field shouldn't explain what is basic in their field. That is mansplaining. Mansplaining is contextual.
-
Your mom lies to your dad everyday
they dont talk so i know that aint true
-
Can you give some examples?
For example when i start talking about biology and cell mechanisms, or when explaining how i fixed some technical issue that popped up. In the past I wasn't able to stop, but i've learnt my lesson and when i see that i've exceeded the maximum talking time (mostly on her face) then i stop talking. Those things aren't stuff that she does know about, but she's not very interested in those things.
-
I don't really see people use the term mansplain to mean anything other than men being condescending. While I do see it used "incorrectly" sometimes, I have no reason to believe the person using it doesn't believe the man is being rude/condescending. Just because I personally believe something isn't condescending doesn't mean the person doesn't view it like that (and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic). I see people call people assholes when they're not being assholes. I see people call people jerks when they're not being jerks. It's not really a new thing.
In short, I don't believe anyone is using the term differently, it could be that you don't think the man doing the explaining is being condescending but they do, or it could be that the term really is used differently and I just haven't personally seen it (always a possibility).
I have no reason to believe the person using it doesn't believe the man is being rude/condescending. Just because I personally believe something isn't condescending doesn't mean the person doesn't view it like that (and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic).
There are a lot of insecure people in the world, to whom any explanation feels condescending. Are we really suggesting that the perception of the recipient is more valid than the intent of the subject? That's kinda the whole problem.
Is it mansplaining for a man who's been a physical trainer for years to explain to a woman that she's about to seriously hurt herself with improper form? He knows what he's talking about, she's definitely going to hurt herself, his tone is polite but urgent, and the intent is sincerely to help her avoid that. Is her feeling that he's being condescending by criticizing her form enough to make him a mansplainer?
it could be that the term really is used differently and I just haven't personally seen it (always a possibility).
I have personally seen it. I've personally been accused of mansplaining when correcting someone on something I know a great deal about, and immediately after watching them do it very wrong. Honestly I've probably seen it used defensively to delegitimize the man in question much more often than I've seen actual mansplaining.
I'm not saying it's not a real phenomenon, but it seems more often to be a term used to shut down legitimate communication.
-
Right, so a man talking to a woman in the same field shouldn't explain what is basic in their field. That is mansplaining. Mansplaining is contextual.
It is used much more freely than that. I agree that it's a problem when it actually happens, but I'd argue the accurate use of the term is not the typical one.
-
woman here. please explain something to me. /gen
Measles use your macrophages as a taxi to your lymph nodes so they can attack the immune system and the memory cells which are responsible for the immune reaction against everything you already encountered in your life - after an measles infection you count as immune suppressed for about an year, and people who caught the measles lose all or most immunities imparted by prior infection or vaccination. Studies have indicated that up to 90% of child mortality in 3rd world countries have a connection to a prior measles infection, even if the child survived the measles themselves. That makes the current measles outbreaks that started occurring in the last years pretty scary; in london there are only about 60-70% of all people vaccinated, which is not enough for a herd immunity that protects people who cannot get vaccinated.
I hope it was interesting! I love talking about such stuff, was sitting here with a smile while typing, thanks for listening
-
Measles use your macrophages as a taxi to your lymph nodes so they can attack the immune system and the memory cells which are responsible for the immune reaction against everything you already encountered in your life - after an measles infection you count as immune suppressed for about an year, and people who caught the measles lose all or most immunities imparted by prior infection or vaccination. Studies have indicated that up to 90% of child mortality in 3rd world countries have a connection to a prior measles infection, even if the child survived the measles themselves. That makes the current measles outbreaks that started occurring in the last years pretty scary; in london there are only about 60-70% of all people vaccinated, which is not enough for a herd immunity that protects people who cannot get vaccinated.
I hope it was interesting! I love talking about such stuff, was sitting here with a smile while typing, thanks for listening
Thank you for explaining.
-
I have no reason to believe the person using it doesn't believe the man is being rude/condescending. Just because I personally believe something isn't condescending doesn't mean the person doesn't view it like that (and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic).
There are a lot of insecure people in the world, to whom any explanation feels condescending. Are we really suggesting that the perception of the recipient is more valid than the intent of the subject? That's kinda the whole problem.
Is it mansplaining for a man who's been a physical trainer for years to explain to a woman that she's about to seriously hurt herself with improper form? He knows what he's talking about, she's definitely going to hurt herself, his tone is polite but urgent, and the intent is sincerely to help her avoid that. Is her feeling that he's being condescending by criticizing her form enough to make him a mansplainer?
it could be that the term really is used differently and I just haven't personally seen it (always a possibility).
I have personally seen it. I've personally been accused of mansplaining when correcting someone on something I know a great deal about, and immediately after watching them do it very wrong. Honestly I've probably seen it used defensively to delegitimize the man in question much more often than I've seen actual mansplaining.
I'm not saying it's not a real phenomenon, but it seems more often to be a term used to shut down legitimate communication.
Are we really suggesting that the perception of the recipient is more valid than the intent of the subject? That's kinda the whole problem.
When the topic is "do people use the term mansplaining to describe men explaining something without being condescending", yes.
Is it mansplaining for a man who's been a physical trainer for years to explain to a woman that she's about to seriously hurt herself with improper form?
This is why I said
and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic
For the topic we're talking about (do people use the term to describe men explaining things while not being condescending), if the woman in that example thought the man was being condescending and thought she knew better, she'd be using the term properly as you describe it should be used. That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. In her mind she views the man as being condescending. In her mind she believes she knows better. So she's using the term correctly.
Now to be clear, I'm not saying it is mansplaining. Nor am I saying the man shouldn't be doing it in that scenario.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I too hate [opposite gender of reader]
I hate them very much and would not like them on my bed or in my home or in my arms
I hate [opposite gender] and their tendency to be constantly on my mind
-
"Mansplaining" is describing something sexist. It describes a real phenomenon that is necessarily gendered.
It's not sexist for the same reason terms like "anti-semitism" or "gay bashing" aren't prejudiced. They're descriptive of a real thing that happens.
Terminology like this can help women navigate problems that men don't have. If you don't see the value in it, maybe that's because you've never experienced that problem.
Bit of a difference between "mansplaining" and the other terms in that the other terms mention the target of the action, leaving the actor ambiguous. Anyone could be anti-semitic or bash gay people. Mansplaining is a term specifically coined to say that only men can perform condescending infodumps. What's worse, nowadays it's often used just for men explaining things they're not sure if the other person knows. Some of us are also neurodivergent and have trouble picking up even fairly obvious social cues. I know it's a problem for me with ADHD and I know there's also "tism infodumps". Both disorders affect women too (and ADHD in women is underdiagnosed), but I've never heard "womansplaining" used as a term, nor do I think it would be appropriate. It'd be a hella sexist term.
I'm sure there's quite a few men out there who legitimately are so condescending, they feel they have to explain basic things to "dumb women". But I'm willing to bet most cases of "mansplaining" are some guy being an idiot and missing hints from the other party in the conversation, as well as just misjudging what is common knowledge and what isn't.
It doesn't help that women are just more polite and more likely to let you finish talking even when they know everything lol
-
No, it applies to "men", and I identify as one.
That's like whenever racists say shit like "hey did you know 50% of crimes are committed by 13% of the population?", a black person calling out the racism, and then being dismissed by saying "well if you don't commit crimes they aren't talking about you".
Look, you're not wrong. It's just really hard for me to take it seriously.
Does it truly hurt your feelings that men are stereotyped as overbearing and condescending? Are you truly injured by this stereotype? Are you personally treated differently because of it?
Maybe it's just the people that hang out with, but I don't find that any of them have had this phrase used against them. It seems more like we're trying very hard to be offended because we have so little else to be offended by. In the name of fairness.
But that's just me and my friends. Maybe you get teased with this incessantly and it really causes you emotional trauma. In that case, I apologize, and please tell me your story.
-
I like how OOP gets the name wrong also. Shane not Shawn. It really makes it feel extra condescending.
That's so cool you noticed that, Jiff! Eagle eyes over here...
-
And English is a very contextual language so something can be a slur in one use and not in another.
Is that actually true? I'm struggling to think of any examples.
There are occasions where a technical term is used as a slur in casual conversations while still being perfectly acceptable in the original context. "Retarded" for example. That certainly does not apply here.
There's some words that are more or less offensive in different English-speaking countries. "Cunt" and "Bloody" come to mind there. There's also been some attempt at reclaiming "cunty" for women which... Eh, I'm just gonna stay away from that one.
"Mansplaining" is offensive from it's very etymology. It's baked into the word without cultural context. The word itself is formed from unnecessary and bigoted generation.
-
I knew about this before a bit, however in the museum they have a few bits dedicated to what information we have of Sophie Scholl and the White Rose resistance attempt.
As the Nazis tried vehemently to erase evidence of dissent, amongst other things of course, the story of Scholl's attempt at gathering resistance has survived - despite her expected demise.I have not read up on my History in many years, however it's often a short yet symbolic read to the persistence some humans have shown in the face of terror. I do recommend it.
Incredible
Sophie Scholl and the rest, heroes and martyrs
Distributed anti-nazi pamphlets and tried to take all the blame to save their friends. Defiant to the end, supporting their country but not its evil divergence.
RIP:
Sophie Scholl, Hans Scholl, Christoph Probst, Willi Graf, Alexander Schmorell, and Kurt Huber
-
Are we really suggesting that the perception of the recipient is more valid than the intent of the subject? That's kinda the whole problem.
When the topic is "do people use the term mansplaining to describe men explaining something without being condescending", yes.
Is it mansplaining for a man who's been a physical trainer for years to explain to a woman that she's about to seriously hurt herself with improper form?
This is why I said
and whether the person is actually being condescending is a totally different topic
For the topic we're talking about (do people use the term to describe men explaining things while not being condescending), if the woman in that example thought the man was being condescending and thought she knew better, she'd be using the term properly as you describe it should be used. That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. In her mind she views the man as being condescending. In her mind she believes she knows better. So she's using the term correctly.
Now to be clear, I'm not saying it is mansplaining. Nor am I saying the man shouldn't be doing it in that scenario.
In her mind she views the man as being condescending. In her mind she believes she knows better. So she's using the term correctly.
Now to be clear, I'm not saying it is mansplaining. Nor am I saying the man shouldn't be doing it in that scenario.
That's my point. It's being used far too liberally. I'm not saying they don't feel justified in using it, I'm saying that the standard being applied is far too low, and it shuts down legitimate communication. It has the built in defense of delegitimizing any attempts at clarification, because obviously the mansplainer is just mansplaining how he isn't mansplaining.
To go back to my analogy:
Would you likewise agree that a man would be justified in accusing a woman, with an accurate and valid complaint, of womancomplaining simply because he felt she was exaggerating? And couldn't he then go on to deflect any clarification she offers as further womancomplaining?
I'm not saying these people don't feel like they're using their terms correctly, I'm saying that it shuts down communication and accelerates the weaponization of accusation. It contributes to the gender divide, and has certainly helped to nudge men towards man-o-sphere radicalization.
