How to handle mansplaining

[James R]

You need to explain what it is that exactly turns you off to the conversation. As an example, if I explain to my wife the function of the alternator in our car, how to replace it, and why doing the work myself is less expensive than going to a mechanic, would that be mansplaining?

So, in light of the above, you can say that this could be an example of mansplaining, particularly if your wife already knows what an alternator does, and already understands the concept of doing the work yourself as opposed to paying somebody else to do it.

If your aim in the conversation is to demonstrate your superior knowledge of alternators to your wife, assuming that women generally don't know much about cars, then you might be mansplaining.

 

[James R]

Another good definition:

Mansplain (v.): to delight in condescending, inaccurate explanations delivered with rock-solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in the conversation.
​

Example: A man explaining to a female neuroscientist that "there are molecules in the brain called neurotransmitters", not bothering to investigate whether she already knows this, or whether she may, in fact, know far more about the topic than he does.

 

[Bowser]

So, in light of the above, you can say that this could be an example of mansplaining, particularly if your wife already knows what an alternator does, and already understands the concept of doing the work yourself as opposed to paying somebody else to do it.

If your aim in the conversation is to demonstrate your superior knowledge of alternators to your wife, assuming that women generally don't know much about cars, then you might be mansplaining.

I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn. Is there a parallel word? Such as "Shesplaining"? Or do we just call that "Nagging"?

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― Show decent respect

Mansplaining? Isn't that simply addressing a question or giving information? If I were to do the same to another man, would it still then be "mansplaning"? Honestly, I'm a bit confused by the term.

Bowser, we do not believe you are so ignorant that you cannot tell the difference between interrupting someone and answering a question.

Furthermore, had you attended the topic post, you would already know that "mansplaining" does not refer to "simply addressing the question or giving information".

Here's the problem:

• Proposition: We are discussing [this idea].

• Bowser: What is [this other idea over here]?​

No. We do not accept your change of subject. Stay on topic. You have now received as much of a warning as you are going to get.

 

[Bells]

You need to explain what it is that exactly turns you off to the conversation. As an example, if I explain to my wife the function of the alternator in our car, how to replace it, and why doing the work myself is less expensive than going to a mechanic, would that be mansplaining?

Let's just imagine your wife just replaced the alternator because it stopped working and you then come in and explain it's function, how to replace it and tell her why her doing it herself is less expensive... In short, let's just imagine you treat your wife like she is a complete idiot and you take to offering your opinion and explaining things to her that she already knows, understands and is probably better at than you, or you take to interrupting her when she speaks, to explain to her what she is actually talking about... that would be mansplaining.

I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn. Is there a parallel word? Such as "Shesplaining"? Or do we just call that "Nagging"?

Really dude?

How many people have to explain this to you?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I have a nephew who recently earned his doctorate in astrophysics. His head hasn't swollen to the point of never being able to listening.

Um, you posted that because?

:EDIT:

Or maybe you shouldn't answer.

 

[birch]

There are some really strange things men say to women such as repeating over and over the same story they told you yesterday as if you dont know. Its very annoying and shows how self-involved they are. Its rude as if you are supposed to react with an 'aha, really?' each time.

As for mansplaining though, women as well as men can do it too. Its usually out of ignorance and underestimating or assuming the other doesnt know. The part that is most annoying isnt so much the condescension which can be seriously violating if its done in public using you as fodder by denigrating you for the express purpose to show off or stroke their ego. The most annoying aspect is if you are in a captive audience moment and have to listen to shit you already know and want to nod off or tell them to shut up because they are boring you to death and tedious.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Yes, the 1% should get as much air time as the 99%.

You don't even know what you're talking about..

 

[iceaura]

I've seen it once in my long life

Unlikely, in the extreme.

It's possible that you only recognized that something was wrong once in your whole life, but the only way you didn't see it a few times a year is if you were some kind of hermit.

I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn. Is there a parallel word? Such as "Shesplaining"? Or do we just call that "Nagging"?

There is no parallel common and accepted social kink. Women who act like that toward men are not tolerated unless they are signing your check.

 

[James R]

+1 I'm a sucker for a good flow chart.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Um, you posted that because?

:EDIT:

Or maybe you shouldn't answer.

But if you don't respond to me, it means you are a coward.

Oh, served in the marines did you, I'm so impressed.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'm waiting.

You're so a big man to prove me wrong - about everything.

 

[Confused2]

I would admit that alcohol can 'cloud' my judgement. Anyone want to call me a liar? A pretty face also 'clouds' my judgement. Pretty faces have cost me thousands and thousands of pounds and wasted years of my lfe. If 'mansplaining' is all you have to worry about then you're lucky.

 

[GeoffP]

Another good definition:

Mansplain (v.): to delight in condescending, inaccurate explanations delivered with rock-solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course he is right, because he is the man in the conversation.
​

Example: A man explaining to a female neuroscientist that "there are molecules in the brain called neurotransmitters", not bothering to investigate whether she already knows this, or whether she may, in fact, know far more about the topic than he does.

How would this man possibly know this? Should he ask, in each instance? How could you advance this concept to me, having no sense of whether I have, in fact, been exposed to far more situations concerning this than yourself? It's an absolutely absurd standard of discourse. If you want to call it condescension, then that's the term for it. The creation of a sexist label then enjoins the use of the countervailing womansplaining. Let's employ the standard above: if a woman explains to me - an actual medical and evolutionary biologist, here - the range of local vaccines available and their etiological basis, should I be similarly offended in the same manner on basis that she clearly must assume that I don't know such things, as I'm male? This actually came up last week. Similarly, the wife asked me just an hour or two ago where I was taking our eldest for a see-to about his wrist. I said where. She proceeded to cite off their hours, as if I had not taken him to the same clinic two weeks ago. Is this then womansplaining? Where should we end our assumptions, then?

And greetings, by the way.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

How would this man possibly know this? Should he ask, in each instance? How could you advance this concept to me, having no sense of whether I have, in fact, been exposed to far more situations concerning this than yourself? It's an absolutely absurd standard of discourse. If you want to call it condescension, then that's the term for it. The creation of a sexist label then enjoins the use of the countervailing womansplaining. Let's employ the standard above: if a woman explains to me - an actual medical and evolutionary biologist, here - the range of local vaccines available and their etiological basis, should I be similarly offended in the same manner on basis that she clearly must assume that I don't know such things, as I'm male? This actually came up last week. Similarly, the wife asked me just an hour or two ago where I was taking our eldest for a see-to about his wrist. I said where. She proceeded to cite off their hours, as if I had not taken him to the same clinic two weeks ago. Is this then womansplaining? Where should we end our assumptions, then?

And greetings, by the way.

Are you also making shit up? No paragraphs either?

 

[iceaura]

Let's employ the standard above: if a woman explains to me - an actual medical and evolutionary biologist, here - the range of local vaccines available and their etiological basis, should I be similarly offended in the same manner on basis that she clearly must assume that I don't know such things, as I'm male? This actually came up last week. Similarly, the wife asked me just an hour or two ago where I was taking our eldest for a see-to about his wrist. I said where. She proceeded to cite off their hours, as if I had not taken him to the same clinic two weeks ago. Is this then womansplaining? Where should we end our assumptions, then?

So how would you describe the situation involved in the OP, and commonly referred to as "mansplaining" - what standards would you use?

It beggars belief that you haven't noticed the pattern, in the general society and in your own circles.

 

[James R]

GeoffP:

If in doubt, try referring to the handy flow-chart, above.

 

[exchemist]

How would this man possibly know this? Should he ask, in each instance? How could you advance this concept to me, having no sense of whether I have, in fact, been exposed to far more situations concerning this than yourself? It's an absolutely absurd standard of discourse. If you want to call it condescension, then that's the term for it. The creation of a sexist label then enjoins the use of the countervailing womansplaining. Let's employ the standard above: if a woman explains to me - an actual medical and evolutionary biologist, here - the range of local vaccines available and their etiological basis, should I be similarly offended in the same manner on basis that she clearly must assume that I don't know such things, as I'm male? This actually came up last week. Similarly, the wife asked me just an hour or two ago where I was taking our eldest for a see-to about his wrist. I said where. She proceeded to cite off their hours, as if I had not taken him to the same clinic two weeks ago. Is this then womansplaining? Where should we end our assumptions, then?

And greetings, by the way.

Geoff, I think it is undeniable that the phenomenon of condescension of men towards women, based on assuming a low level of knowledge on the part of the women, especially on technical matters, is a real thing. I have seen it at work often enough, over my working life. I have also seen some boobytraps sprung by women, which were rather funny to watch. I once had a very pretty and charming blonde girlfriend who was a refinery technologist and an engineer. She used to let the man deliver his patronising explanation and then effortlessly demonstrate in her reply that she knew far more about than he did. It was one way she earned respect on the refinery - nobody did that twice to her. (The first time I went to her house, she was changing the clutch plate on her car, by herself - all torn jeans and engine oil. Car bores used to get caught out by her with regularity.)

Whether we really need a term "mansplaining" is more doubtful. However I see it as a good-natured joke by women at the expense of men, and take it in good part. We have our jokes about them, after all, to do with shoes, their delusions about multi-tasking and so on.

 

[wellwisher]

Another way to look at this is, in a world of PC correct office behavior, geared toward handcuffing men (women are never handcuff based on what the consensus of men see as problems), mansplaining is a way to interact with women, while avoiding human resources. If a guy goes up to a woman, at the office and says want to go for a ride in his sports car; making himself look bigger, she if off to human resources saying to made a suggestive comment. If he is mansplains to her, he tries to show himself being good at something. This is annoying, but she won't she-complain to human resources since this is not yet part of PC.

Women are smart and can learn anything, but they are not as good at thinking outside the box. Women are social animals and thinking outside the box can place you in social isolation, which women would prefer avoid. Sometime mansplaining is about the view from the outside. This view may not be with the program or be considered good social protocol, but all innovative ideas begin this way. Mansplaining can add data from the outside, that is not part of her equation, even if her equation balances based on good inside the box data.

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

Another way to look at this is, in a world of PC correct office behavior, geared toward handcuffing men...

Pointing out that this happens doesn't stop (some) men doing it. So, it's hardly handcuffing anybody.

...(women are never handcuff based on what the consensus of men see as problems)

Examples?

... mansplaining is a way to interact with women, while avoiding human resources.

Are you trying to justify mansplaining on the basis that it allows men to treat women as less-than-human objects? And you think that's fine, do you?

Women are smart and can learn anything, but they are not as good at thinking outside the box.

This kind of generalisation is sexist nonsense, based on some brand of misogynistic pop-psychology.

Women are social animals and thinking outside the box can place you in social isolation, which women would prefer avoid.

Mansplaining can place you in social isolation, too. I suppose that doesn't both (some) men.

Sometime mansplaining is about the view from the outside. This view may not be with the program or be considered good social protocol, but all innovative ideas begin this way. Mansplaining can add data from the outside, that is not part of her equation, even if her equation balances based on good inside the box data.

I don't think you "get" what mansplaining is. There's no data being added when the woman already knows more than the man concerned. See definitions above.