Mansplaining
 

Today we are going to talk about mansplaining!!!

Now, the word has been around for awhile, in many variations:

Wiki


In recent months, the word has gained popularity, and has become sort of a buzzword.

Unfortunately, when something obtains buzzword status it usually fails to hold onto it's original intended meaning. Mr. Wong provided me with an article, 5 Reasons to stop using the word Mansplaining' - and I'd love to break it down here:

I'll start with the introduction paragraph...because I believe it incorrectly talks about mansplaining.
Mansplaining is not:

• A man offering a correction to a woman when they're engaged in a conversation.
• Judging a man based on his gender.

1) Okay - their first argument states that because the word mansplain uses the prefix 'man' it connotes that the "arrogant" behavior they are exuding is tied to their gender.

It's a bit trickery then that! Mansplaining describes the phenomenon that men tend to explain or talk over women who are more qualified on the subject mater then them. This behavior stems from a place of gender privilege... so while the behavior may be tied to privilege... mansplaining does not accuse someone of being arrogant or condescending because of their gender..... (And it's not at all like saying a woman is a bad driver because she has a vagina?? Who wrote this article?)

2) The article suggests that calling out mansplaining is a double standard.

I disagree... If you're going to call someone out on this behavior, you don't need to do it mid sentence. You can let them finish their thought and tell them you know the subject matter! Heck, you don't even need to use the word mansplaining!!! (But hell, it would be funny to see the look on the others face, so why not.. just kidding... mostly) But in all seriousness. The point of the word is to bring awareness to the phenomenon, so I don't even get the point of this argument? Are we not supposed to bring it up at all? Are we supposed to continue to be mansplained to?

3) It's a form a censorship

....This is just...?? The author of this article seems to be caught up in buzzword paranoia. But I'll bite.
Censorship is the suppression of free speech. Calling you out on mansplaining is not that. The idea that the author thinks the man's opinion will change the woman's mind is the same kind of arrogance that leads to mansplaining in the first place.

4) This argument is not supported by the research. There have been countless articles that show men dominate the conversation in co-ed spaces. That's the whole reason this term was created!! To be able to discuss the phenomenon!!!

5) Again - mansplaining is not valid critisism. If it were, we would just call it criticism.

----

• What are your thoughts on the term?
• Do you use it, or any of its variations? (i.e. whitesplaining?)
• What are your thoughts on the phenomenon behind mansplaning? (Men talking over women more qualified then them.)
• Do you have a favorite 'splaining moment/meme?

This is mine!!

http://i68.tinypic.com/2vdlaav.png
http://i64.tinypic.com/2dce8mg.png

bringing gender into the concept of someone being a know-it-all, assuming that gender bias or "privilege" is one's reason for said behavior, and acknowledging only such acts as perpetrated by a man unto a woman in order to support said assumption... sounds pretty damn sexist to me.
women exhibit the same behavior toward men, and toward other women. men also exhibit the same behavior toward other men. unless the offending party makes it clear that they believe the other party's gender makes that person's knowledge of the topic inferior, gender is irrelevant. trying to make it relevant is just looking for issues that aren't there. if you have to go so far as to make a new "___splaining" word for every gender/combination, it becomes really apparent that it's not actually a gendered issue in the first place. same goes for race or any other status. doubly so if/when you ignore or don't have a special made-up word for cases that don't involve men, whites, cisgendered people, or any other so-called "privileged" group as the perpetrators.
this whole thing is ridiculous and honestly pretty offensive.

Honestly when someone uses the term "mansplaining" in any kind of serious context I lose a level of respect for them. I've never seen someone make an accusation of mansplaining as a way of doing anything except trying to shut down a debate or conversation. It really does read to me like "I don't like your opinion, let me use a made-up buzzword to kill this argument before I actually have to give any kind of in-depth, thoughtful response to the subject."

Likewise explaining something in a condescending manner to someone more qualified than them isn't exclusively a man thing. I've seen plenty of women do it to men and other women. The fact that people feel the need to make it seem like a man thing is just stupid. Face it, mainsplaining is an accusation people throw around when they want a metaphorical escape hatch or a quick and easy way to try and discredit a point of view. Because if you wanna score some easy points accuse the other side of sexism/racism/homophobia with the current trending buzzword.

"mansplaining" is also completely unnecessary. The words pretentious, snobby, arrogant, condescending, and patronizing already exist and serve their purpose just fine. I don't understand why it's important to emphasize this as a male quality when talking over people with the assumption that you know more than they do isn't really relevant to gender at all.

Except you both are missing the fact that it IS relevant to gender?

Men dominate the conversation in co-ed spaces, and women tend to need more qualification, or validation from another man to be taken seriously in their field.

The whole point of the word is to point out the phenomenon to be able to talk about it specifically when it occurs men to.women. YES it can occur men to men, women to men, etc... but the frequency and damage done by the silencing of women (which mansplaing does) is honestly more important then people not.liking the word because some overzealous young liberals use it incorrectly on the Internet.

Except the word is almost never used to actively explain or discuss this so much as it is to take a crack at men for something feminists consider to be male behavior. Kind of like the word Nazi it doesn't really hold any kind of power because it's obtained buzzword status and is flung around willy-nilly whether it actually applies or not. It's also very gender essentialist just by benefit of being what it is. It heavily implies that arrogant or condescending behavior is inherently a male thing or requires extra attention when done by a male vs a female.

Truth be told I have seen women in the work place silence, and talk over other women just as much, if not more, than the men. I've experienced it more from other women, usually women in a managerial position or even just women who happen to be older than I am. So I'm not convinced it happens disproportionately more man-to-woman than it does woman-to-woman or man-to-man. I've also seen women in education or the workforce gaslight other women, writing off legitimate concerns or anxieties as these women being "dramatic", "unrealistic" or "attention seeking" and at worst trying to make younger, newer or slightly lower on the corporate ladder women believe that they are incompetent and have done a job wrong when really the case is completely the opposite. Drawing attention to these issues as a specifically male phenomenon or emphasizing the behavior when it's done by a male gives the impression that it's only harmful when done by men or that it is an inherently male behavior to be condescending and arrogant.

It honestly reminds me of a discussion on abuse where physical abuse is automatically depicted as a man being violent to a woman, leading to the association with men as being more prone to violent and aggressive behavior because they are men.

Maybe "mansplaining" isn't supposed to imply that men are condescending because they are men but that is definitely how it is used way more often than not.

Thank you, Red Lion, for explaining so eloquently your first hand accounts of workplace interactions between the sexes. I found it very informative as I have never worked in an office environment for an extended period of time. Frankly, I couldn't deal well with the backstabbing and petty politics that goes in the cubicle world. However, I did appreciate greatly the comedy cult classic Office Space.

In honor of your slaying of this unwarranted word, we should have a funeral service for it. Be warned, though, what I will leave at this grave site won't pass for flowers.

I mentioned that it has become a buzzword in my original post - which is why I broke down that article. I'll admit, I was a bit annoyed when I created this thread.... but the point of it was to start the discussion around the point of the word and why it was created over the word itself - so that perhaps when you next see it used, you'll look at context before immediately dismissing it.

This is called internalized misogyny and lateral violence in the workplace!! Kind of unrelated?? Like, I understand why it's frustrating.... I'm in nursing so this is kind of a common phenomenon; so much so that we actively research it - there are not funny jokes about nurses 'eating their young' which is what I'm about to be, because I'm starting at a new hospital.... Point is, we're not having a 'which gender can be the bigger dick' contest.

I feel like I already addressed the last little bit in relation to behavior and gender...

But drawing attention to the phenomenon when it is done by a male to a female is important because it brings attention to it!!
This behavior is part of a larger issue, which is women being silenced. That's not to say it's not rude, or condescending when a woman does it to a man... it's just saying that it doesn't have the same impact.

And just as the stereotype of women being the ones who talk the most... yet men dominating the conversation 75% of the time - we aim to fight stereotypes!

I actually spend some time working in the domestic violence and sexual assault clinic - the nurses and staff were very well trained; and held no bias towards men. The training and processes have come a long way I imagine, at least on their ends of things.

And that is totally a fair point!! I don't really use it myself because of the controversy around it - in fact, in the thread the other day with Mr. Wong was the first time - and 'Whitesplain' might have been more appropriate now that I reflect....but either way.... how do we engage in conversations about this?

How do we say - hey, this is a pattern I recognize- it's harmful to x group how do we talk about this?

Putting words to these kinds of things seems to make people angry, as if the word itself attacks them.... and I don't understand that.

When something becomes a buzzword, yes... it's a bit... overkill - used incorrectly, meanings get lost.

But we lose so much potential for good dialog on important topics!

So... reading a bit through this I've learned one thing. Mansplaining is the stupidest term I've ever heard of.
If you are talking to someone in a condescending form, you are being an asshole, case and point. There is no need to slap more labels on stuff. Additionally, the use of mansplaining is in a way extremely sexist because there is no real use of "femmsplaining, or womansplaining", making it a one sided target at men to "put them back in their place".

It is actually a double standard really in some ways. But genders in these modern times have a LOT of double standards. Thousands of them. Things acceptable to only one side that are pushed on you from your friends all the way to movies and ads.

Do you know WHY men "dominate" the conversation? Because we were TAUGHT to. We were raised that we have to make the first move on EVERYTHING. We had to be dominant, strong, all these traits were pressed on us just like women had their own expectations shoved in their faces.

Also your example is not really mansplaining. It's clearly called out for being an "entitled moron". As for the way she said it, it's quite clear that she was simplifying it. She could have made an accurate and complex post about it (she's in the field and knows her shit), it would exceed the character limit or confuse everyone. Not a good way to get people interested in science.

In conclusion I'd say mansplaining can go die in a hole somewhere. Labels are not good for a society. It pushes people apart and creates more labels. There is so much focus right now in modern society to empower women and encourage women, they are perfect how they are, smart, beautiful, etc.
No real progress has been made for men. We are still expected to have chiseled abs, great personalities, perfect behavior. Any sign of weakness in a male is met with ridicule, humiliation, and disgust. We must be strong, emotionless, perfect.

Gonna call bull on this, sorry. It does actually have the same impact, but due to the way men are raised, we are taught not to let things affect us, and to internalize pretty much everything. It affects us, but you wont ever SEE it affect us, because it's not socially acceptable to let you see it.

As for the "whitesplaining", that would be classified as racist.

Can we seriously just stop labeling people? It's pointless, stupid, and harmful. You slap a label on one person for sex, age, or race, and you hit ALL of us with it.

I did not say that you don't. I am referring to society as a whole. Also considering that the term mansplaining is a derogatory term towards males, it's not exactly a "how do we better women's lives" thread.

If one is going to justify the use of mansplaining and whitesplaining, then they need to come to terms with being a racist individual.

The issue is that essentially they have taken a derogatory word and justified it's use. Do you know what other derogatory words had the same purpose? They can cause you to lose your job if you say them out loud now because they are blatantly derogatory terms. They are rude, impolite, and unprofessional.

How do you talk about these issues? "This guy is being an asshole" or "this girl is being an asshole". Problem solved. No need for new labels. Instead of hiding behind a label and slapping that label on every single related person, call them out for what they are.
Words are used to discuss things, yes. But you don't have to create a new word to specifically target a specific race or gender when a non gender specific term already exists. Such as Patronizing, Condescending, etc. What happens is that label gets put on all of us whether that was your intention or not. Society starts to expect it of us before we have even opened our mouths.

Our goal as a country, or even as a world should be to remove these sorts of labels from our fellow humans. The day we stop slapping labels on people is the day we can progress as a species to become equals.

Society isn't an equal playing field, so the reality of racism and sexism is hardly surprising. Whether you like the word or not, 'masplaining' was coined to explain a specific social phenomenon women encounter, rather than some kind of label that was pulled out of hat. Rather than getting bogged down in useless sematic arguments of whether or not it is 'complimentary' to men, we have to acknowledge our own social and cultural biases and engage in critical discussions in order to understand the phenomenon better. By reconciling ourselves with our own biases we are able to challenge the behaviour that enables and perpetuates this kind of negative and discrimatory behaviour towards others and ourselves.

But the issue with mansplaining is that it ends up hiding the real issue. It's a label slapped on to conceal the real issue. If you're being condescending you need approached about being condescending.

Literally says it is condescending in the definition. So as far as I can tell, there is absolutely no reason to have an exclusively male attacking term for it. That "Specific social phenomenon" is condescending/patronizing, which people fuss about gender neutral terms a lot nowadays... well mansplaining HAS a gender neutral term.

We cannot transcend the fact that systemic discrimination exists within society, so it is absolutely meaningless to apply definitions or theories which do not reflect our social reality. There is nothing to gain from masking a gender specific problem with gender neutral term.

It doesn't seem like a gender specific problem though. It has simply brought forward terms like "Femmsplaining" to point the finger back at women who do the exact same thing. In the end we're back in the same spot, except I have to learn 2 more words I'll never use.
Yes the issue needs addressed, but by making is gender specific, it makes it appear as if women don't do the exact same thing to men in certain aspects. As if women are somehow immune to making condescending comments.

I've seen men talk down to men, women talk down to women, men talk down to women and women talk down to men. I see all of these happening on a regular basis. It's general arrogance and feelings of superiority.

But really it doesn't make any sense to me that one would attempt to argue with someone holding superior knowledge. Back in pharmacy school we had a female math major and not once did anyone doubt her intelligence in the matter. She practically taught the math section for the teacher.
Again, I had a coworker at one time that felt the need to correct everyone (male or female). Yknow what happened? We fired him. He (the new pharmacist) got into an argument with a senior pharmacist about how the pharmacy is run. Was it mansplaining? No. Just some guy with a loaded mouth who got fired.

The definition is clear when framing the social context of the issue - this is a form of sexism perpetuated by men against women. This is what distinguishes it from other forms condescension.

But if it's sexism, call it sexism. We still don't need another word.

That's not how language works. There isn't a creator or a censor who moderates language. People have the option to use the word sexism instead of mansplaining... but they don't. Mansplaining situates sexism in specific social context, which sexism fails to do as a standalone word. In other words, if mansplaining was a redundant and useless then people wouldn't use it.

I have been thinking about this thread quite a bit while I was at work.
I think part of what caused this "mansplaining" incident to come to action is due to the effects on the dating scene. Essentially women have the ability to manipulate how men behave by the expectations they have upon them.
Of course, that goes both ways.

But say a woman wants a smart, funny, and good looking guy? Smart? Well of course they want to show how smart they are at any chance. Of course this can and does backfire. If a guy attempts to "show off his wits" about a subject he knows nothing about to impress a woman, he may get called out for bullshit, but in the end impressing her is likely his goal.

Unfortunately Menewsha has very few males who can vouch for any sort of accuracy. This is simply the observation of someone who has never participated in the dating scene, as well as things I have seen as recurring themes in movies.

It's terribly paranoid to think that the world is out to get you and put you down. Men don't think "I need to put her in her place". No. Almost any time I hear about a guy talking about a girl, it's attempting to impress them. I once helped a boy write a poem for his best friend of many many years because he wanted to date her. He wanted to write that poem not to say "I'm so much better at this than you". Clearly not. It was to impress her.

Eventually you take those variables and you force them into repetition so many times they become a part of your personality, and that is hard to change.

The goal of a male in nature is to reproduce. In nature a male will do anything to reproduce, some birds will steal, some mammals will have fatal fights, and some species will attempt to impress the female with dance. Humans aren't that much different, they just have language.

The social aspect is one I've never really understood. It's equivalent to a free for all war against everyone. People clawing their way to be at the top of some artificial social pyramid. Much like those in nature they are fighting to be the most beautiful, the strongest, and the smartest, and these give them their pointless social standing.

If the word was redundant and useless? Keep in mind YOLO was popular. One of the most useless phrases ever created.

thing is, the "context" for which the word was created didn't really exist in the first place. context is being forced in to create the illusion of sexism in a situation merely because of the sexes of the parties involved. like if person A punches person B and both happen to be white, nobody cares. if person A is white but person B happens to be black, you'll have people crawling out of the woodwork to call it racism, even so the reason for the fight had nothing to do with race. same shit here. men don't do this because they think women are inherently inferior. if that were the case, then women wouldn't do it to anyone and men wouldn't do it to other men, but all of those happen. so if you wouldn't assume sexism in any other case except for this particular combination of genders, and the genders involved are the ONLY differentiating factor, it's pretty safe to say it's not a sexist situation.
and if a man DOES say "ho ho ho, silly female, you don't know what you're talking about because the kitchen is your domain! i, a man, am much better equipped to explain this thing despite knowing nothing of the topic. allow me to teach you!" then you can call it what it is: sexism. plain and simple. and don't assume that only men do this, or that only women are the recipients.
it's not "mansplaining" because it's not a man thing. the word itself is sexist in origin, more so than the scenarios to which it's applied. It is sexist to paint an issue to which gender is not relevant as if gender is relevant, and to imply that it is only an issue worth noting when the perpetrator is of a certain gender and the "victim" another. that is sexist. trying to force gender to be relevant where it clearly was not, and ESPECIALLY only doing so to paint one gender as the bad guy and the other as the constant victim, IS SEXIST.

Uncledaddy - Also don't forget, it becomes a "hate crime" if a white man punches a black man or visa versa too, instead of just plain being a crime of violence. Tacking on added useless labels to it.

The only phrase that exists now because of this that makes any sense is "Manspreading", which is the act of a man spreading his legs out when he sits. But I learned that men do this because of a biological need not a social need. Much like a delivery driver wont overpack the truck, you don't want to crush the valuables on the bus.

Inferences made from anecdotal evidence is not an explanation - it's a stab in the dark. Your perception and experiences as one human being it too limited to create sweeping generalisations about a whole population. Yes, it is entirely in the realms of possibilty that they are alternative explanations for each perceived incident of 'mansplaining', but it's also entirely possible that it is what it is - a form of sexism. That's why we have to engage critical with the subject matter, to be able to determine possible causes and confounding variables. It's not enough to gloss over this phenomena by shrugging it off as misinterpretation or bad word.
Sexism is systemic and when we start seeing patterns emerging in social interaction between men and women then it warrants further investigation.
Unfortunately we are products of society and its history, and consequently we prone to internalised forms of discrimation that we don't necessarily pick up on conscious level. So we have to be reflective when others who have been historically marginalised voice concerns over issues like sexism or racism... this is essentially how we better ourselves as individuals and a collective.

Sure sexism is bad and needs battled whenever it is seen, just like racism. But in these modern times these labels are being thrown around like they are dollar bills at a strip club and it's destroying people. People think that only one race or one sex deals with societal issues. That is entirely false.

Did you know men can and are accused and jailed for a rape that never happened? Did you know men could be jailed for physical abuse regardless of how beaten and bloodied they are so long as the woman has a single bruise? Did you know that there are far less support groups for abused males? Males who are raped for example are mocked and humiliated because they are supposed to LIKE it. That is societies expectation of this trauma. These are only recently getting the attention they deserve.
But of course males are terrified of women. Want to know why? You can say "He raped me" and he goes to jail, he loses his job, he loses his family, his friends, his home. He can lose EVERYTHING, simply because of some slander.
On the opposite end, if a man says that, he becomes the laughing stock of society.
Either way the man ends up dead in many cases. Suicide.

Sexism goes both ways and in equal matters. Most people are entirely blind to any and all of the sexism males deal with. Acting like women are the only ones who face daily sexism.
You can act like women are the victims, or you can face the truth that everyone faces sexism.

I hope this isn't going off topic,
But I just wanted to add some two cents here...

In my own personal experience, men tend to stick together. So if you, as a woman, were to tell a male police officer that you were raped, (I mean, anyone with a heart would believe you, hopefully, but in case not) they'd most likely question you first to death to see if you're actually lying or not. It's not as easy to get someone in jail as just to say, "he raped me" and then he goes away...



We have things like the SlutWalk and such for a reason, because rape is hard for ANYONE and I get that men talk about it less, but that doesn't make the struggle easier for women at all. Women who are raped are equally as likely to be mocked and humiliated, for different reasons, yeah, but still...

I agree with you that everyone faces sexism. However, I think men and women experience sexism in different ways. Like the examples I gave... When women are raped, they are questioned about what they were wearing, were they drinking, did they say "no", etc.

The reason they question you to see if you're lieing is because women lie about rape. It happens, and numerous men have been jailed for it. So they are trying to make sure it's legitimate. From what I've read they are just as accusing and questioning of the other party as well. Men who are accused are likely bombarded with just as many questions.

But I think one thing that ends up causing the accusations to be fatal is that men are taught to be stern and emotionless, strong and powerful. Tears are weakness. Sometimes that accusation can be so powerful, they're found hanging days later.

Ah here it is. Equality. Instead of coming and saying women have it worse, we've finally met in the middle. Instead of slapping a gender with blame, adding unneeded labels, we've come to the only real phrase this thread needed.
I did not know they were treated like that in some cases though. Of the public records I have seen it's been primarily women being supported.
But of course, it's traumatic. A lot of the issues with it is that the incident can be temporary to the body, so they need to collect samples, do tests, etc, and that alone can deter many from talking about it. Memories also tend to fade after a while and the information becomes flawed and unreliable. I find for me usually even just the next day some memories of a traumatizing event can be cloudy.
I'm not sure if there's a physical test that can be done for men though.

My argument in this isn't that men experience it more. It is actually what you've said Ava. In different ways they both experience it. They also react to it differently. I've been arguing against the comments that are saying women have it worse essentially so they need a phrase like "mansplaining" to attack men with.

Some of the questions they ask you are clearly humiliating and are just trick questions to get you to tell them that you weren't actually raped...
Such as, "Do you know what rape is?", "Did you clearly tell him no?" "Did you fight back?". I mean, I get it if they want to solve the case, but I mean... when someone, especially someone young, claims that they were raped, I'm sure they aren't idiots and don't know what rape is... I'm also pretty sure that if they did not want it, they shouldn't have to actually say, with their mouths, "NO." I also feel that "fighting back" would be a stupid thing to do in the event of rape, especially if it's someone you loved who is the perpetrator...

Anyway, I will probably make this its own topic. I don't want to go off topic here...

I understand, but the same exact thing happens to women who are raped. Only, they end up doing so because of all the names and humiliation they are handed afterwards. Such as, police questioning them on whether or not it really happened, friends calling them a slut, people asking what she was wearing, blaming her for what happened, the man who did it not being punished at all for it, etc.


I don't know about you, but my memories of a certain traumatic event are still mostly fresh in my mind. That's what PTSD does.

I disagree with the term "mansplaining". I don't like it. I am as feminist as the next girl, but I don't think that "mansplaining" should be a thing because it's not exclusive to men. I do think that there are some things men do that are exclusive to men, but I feel like society has come a long way.

I am not saying sexism doesn't exist. It's obvious with things like the wage gap and such, but I feel like we need to understand each other, not separate further.