Poll of the Day > I hate that mansplaining is a thing...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Because like, I want to point out when someone is fucking wrong. Youre wrong! My dick in no way impacts just how wrong you are!

Or something.

I prefer to geek out

just my two cents as a male, but theres a difference between mansplaining and explaining. The former assumes vast ignorance on the part of the explainee and comes from a place of condescension, rather than helpfulness, and is rooted in an assumed superiority of the male gender role. Women and betas would know this if they would just pick up a book.

In my experience anyone who uses the word mansplaining is not doing a good job of arguing.

That said I still try to remember that I'm not a woman and I don't know what it's like or what's different, so I remember that maybe when something a woman says doesn't make sense to me it's because I'm missing that.

No one wants to be lectured or have things explained to them that they already know

Thats what a lot of mansplaining boils down to

I guess I explained badly. Any time theyre absolutely right I dont try to tell them theyre wrong. Im only talking about times where theyre absolutely wrong and need to be told.

I wish I could erase that word from the dictionary.

"Was that a rhetorical question, or are you legitimately curious about to know the details?"

"This isn't mansplaining, you're just wrong."

Granted, the sort of person who defaults to complaining about mansplaining when they're legitimately ignorant and nothing about you explaining their error probably won't listen to that, but it's the best you can do. Even if mansplaining weren't a recognized concept, those people would still be finding other excuses to dismiss whatever you were saying.

If all your explaining comes across as mansplaining, thats a problem with you, not with the concept of mansplaining

MrMelodramatic posted...

If all your explaining comes across as mansplaining, thats a problem with you, not with the concept of mansplaining

I know, but you're still wrong.

JigsawTDCII posted...

just my two cents as a male, but theres a difference between mansplaining and explaining. The former assumes vast ignorance on the part of the explainee and comes from a place of condescension, rather than helpfulness, and is rooted in an assumed superiority of the male gender role. Women and betas would know this if they would just pick up a book.

It's good practice to assume the person is ignorant so you can define terms and even if they don't agree with you, they know what you mean when you say what you say. It just sounds like some women are salty that people don't know what they know, despite not expressing knowledge to them in the first place.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's good practice to assume the person is ignorant

Depends a lot on the context. Starting out with "how much background to you have?" before trying to explain a concept instead of just defaulting to assuming they know nothing can often save quite a lot of time and aggravation for everyone involved.

ZangsBeard posted...

Because like, I want to point out when someone is fucking wrong. Youre wrong! My dick in no way impacts just how wrong you are!

To be fair, the sort of people who use the term "mansplaining" unironically are generally terrible people whose opinions are pretty meaningless anyway. It's why you hear it pop up in places like Twitter or Tumblr more than anywhere else.

It's effectively an ad hominem attack that boils down to "I can't actually argue against your point logically or rationally, so I'm going to resort to personal attacks." It's the adult equivalent of going "Oh yeah? Well, you're a poopy head."

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"Oh yeah? Well, you're a poopy head."

Tbf, I am a poopy head.

adjl posted...

Depends a lot on the context. Starting out with "how much background to you have?" before trying to explain a concept instead of just defaulting to assuming they know nothing can often save quite a lot of time and aggravation for everyone involved.

That brings up the same issue, people get offended when asked what they know as it questions their knowledge on the subject. People are stupid and act up when their ego is hurt, people who complain about mansplaining have a weak ego.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

To be fair, the sort of people who use the term "mansplaining" unironically are generally terrible people whose opinions are pretty meaningless anyway. It's why you hear it pop up in places like Twitter or Tumblr more than anywhere else.

It's effectively an ad hominem attack that boils down to "I can't actually argue against your point logically or rationally, so I'm going to resort to personal attacks." It's the adult equivalent of going "Oh yeah? Well, you're a poopy head."

That's not actual mansplaining, though. That's just people falling back on the term any time they don't want to listen to what a dude is saying. By definition, mansplaining is condescending and patronizing, rooted in the assumption that the woman doesn't know anything about the subject, in which case it's less "I don't need to listen to you because ad hominem" and more "listening to you is a miserable experience so please stop being such an asshole."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That brings up the same issue, people get offended when asked what they know as it questions their knowledge on the subject.

In 33 years of being smarter than pretty much everyone I've ever interacted with, I've never had a single person become offended or annoyed by me checking what understanding they have of a concept before I answer their question or try to explain something to them. If you have, I'm completely confident saying that it's because you were condescending or derisive in asking and that that is the reason people didn't like it. Meanwhile, I've had plenty of people get annoyed by having me tell them a bunch of things they already know, which is pretty understandable because that's a complete waste of their time.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

people who complain about mansplaining have a weak ego.

Again, that's those that are falling back on the term to avoid having to confront being wrong. Actual mansplaining entails assuming that a woman doesn't know anything and needs it all explained to her, which is nothing to do with her ego. That's just an annoying waste of time that could be completely avoided by the guy being less wrapped up in his own ego and taking a moment to figure out whether or not she's actually as ignorant as he assumed.

People don't get offended by having their knowledge questioned. They get offended by having their knowledge dismissed under the assumption that whatever they have is of no value.

adjl posted...

Depends a lot on the context. Starting out with "how much background to you have?" before trying to explain a concept instead of just defaulting to assuming they know nothing can often save quite a lot of time and aggravation for everyone involved.

Anybody who words it like that is just trying to be a dick.

Revelation34 posted...

Anybody who words it like that is just trying to be a dick.

What do you know about mansplaining? What's your background?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's good practice to assume the person is ignorant so you can define terms and even if they don't agree with you, they know what you mean when you say what you say. It just sounds like some women are salty that people don't know what they know, despite not expressing knowledge to them in the first place.

interesting that you chose that one specific part of my post to justify a vaguely misogynistic viewpoint instead of acknowledging I gave a multifaceted mansplation of mansplaining

JigsawTDCII posted...

interesting that you chose that one specific part of my post to justify a vaguely misogynistic viewpoint instead of acknowledging I gave a multifaceted mansplation of mansplaining

Did you just mansplain your mansplaining! Mansplain yourself!

adjl posted...

In 33 years of being smarter than pretty much everyone I've ever interacted with, I've never had a single person become offended or annoyed by me checking what understanding they have of a concept before I answer their question or try to explain something to them. If you have, I'm completely confident saying that it's because you were condescending or derisive in asking and that that is the reason people didn't like it.

I am completely confident it is because we move in different circles. I'm sure there are lots of reasonable people, and good on you on being in professions where you're surrounded by slow people who are high enough up to practice good social etiquette.

adjl posted...

Actual mansplaining entails assuming that a woman doesn't know anything and needs it all explained to her, which is nothing to do with her ego. That's just an annoying waste of time that could be completely avoided by the guy being less wrapped up in his own ego and taking a moment to figure out whether or not she's actually as ignorant as he assumed.

The issue being with that, is that nobody says that they are mansplaining, a "victim" of it assigns that reasoning on to it, when they have no way of knowing it. It's a term by people who have been offended to retroactively change the narrative to feel justified in anger. It's thrown around a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen it justified or used in a non-heated circumstance.

JigsawTDCII posted...

interesting that you chose that one specific part of my post to justify a vaguely misogynistic viewpoint instead of acknowledging I gave a multifaceted mansplation of mansplaining

You elaborated on how people make wild assumptions about others in bad faith. You are a good example of one of those people.

If you get this mad about people who are saying it to get out of arguing, you need to work on yourself. You should be able to understand they're idiots without being mad if they're wrong

If you're mad because they're right, there are lots of little ways you can explain things without being an ass about it, and you might just not be thinking about anyone else's perspective

Think about a Pokemon tutorial on how to catch when you're playing your fourth generation in a row. That might be what you're doing, and yes, people have a right to complain

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I am completely confident it is because we move in different circles. I'm sure there are lots of reasonable people, and good on you on being in professions where you're surrounded by slow people who are high enough up to practice good social etiquette.

I've moved in so many different circles (including the sort of tradespeople among which you count yourself) throughout my life that I'm completely confident that's baseless nonsense you're making up to pretend you didn't just try to generalize your extremely narrow personal experience. If you're giving somebody information that they want (or can at least see a clear benefit to receiving), they aren't going to mind you trying to get a feel for what they already know so you can give them a more useful explanation. If they mind, it's either because they don't care about what you have to say and are frustrated that you insist on talking at them anyway (since that's generally pretty annoying), or because you asked in a way that was insulting or otherwise needlessly disrespectful.

Knowing how you be, I consider both possibilities substantially more likely than that every single person I've encountered has somehow been anomalously more open-minded than the majority of the world.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The issue being with that, is that nobody says that they are mansplaining, a "victim" of it assigns that reasoning on to it, when they have no way of knowing it. It's a term by people who have been offended to retroactively change the narrative to feel justified in anger. It's thrown around a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen it justified or used in a non-heated circumstance.

The takeaway for you is to try to be cognizant of when you're assuming ignorance inappropriately and to avoid being patronizing or condescending when explaining things to people. In the event that somebody does call you out for it in the moment, listen to them. Start from the assumption that they have a valid point, and only conclude that they don't after determining for certain that they're just trying to deflect from being wrong. If you get called out retroactively, do the same thing.

The important thing to remember is that, like most microaggressions, an individual instance of mansplaining generally isn't going to be a big deal. The analogy I see tossed around a lot is that microaggressions are like mosquito bites: One is annoying, but not really a big deal. By the time you get up to a few dozen, though, you're ready to personally rip the proboscis off of any mosquito that even looks at you. When somebody gets mad at you for mansplaining or any other microaggression, they're not mad at you for committing some grievous fault, they're mad at a broader problem that has been bothering them for a while and which you have become a part of. Rather than defending yourself and insisting that their response is unreasonable, try to stop being part of the problem and instead sympathize with their frustration. Insisting that you're only one straw isn't going to fix the camel's back.

Sticky_Derp posted...

If you get this mad about people who are saying it to get out of arguing, you need to work on yourself. You should be able to understand they're idiots without being mad if they're wrong

If you're mad because they're right, there are lots of little ways you can explain things without being an ass about it, and you might just not be thinking about anyone else's perspective

Think about a Pokemon tutorial on how to catch when you're playing your fourth generation in a row. That might be what you're doing, and yes, people have a right to complain

Uh huh, okay. But you're wrong.

As it's not just men that explain things to someone that they already know it doesn't make much sense as a term.

JigsawTDCII posted...

just my two cents as a male, but theres a difference between mansplaining and explaining. The former assumes vast ignorance on the part of the explainee and comes from a place of condescension, rather than helpfulness, and is rooted in an assumed superiority of the male gender role. Women and betas would know this if they would just pick up a book.

no.

condescension has nothing to do with gender.

adjl posted...

I've moved in so many different circles (including the sort of tradespeople among which you count yourself) throughout my life that I'm completely confident that's baseless nonsense you're making up to pretend you didn't just try to generalize your extremely narrow personal experience.

The irony here being that you accuse me of extremely narrow personal experience, while simulatenously saying you've never offended anybody by questioning their experience.

adjl posted...

Knowing how you be, I consider both possibilities substantially more likely than that every single person I've encountered has somehow been anomalously more open-minded than the majority of the world.

Does the majority of the world call people mansplainers? No? Then maybe you're confused because you're looking at irrelevant information. This is about the few people who use the term, not the general public. It's not especially difficult to spend your life without coming across these 70 and below IQ people.

adjl posted...

The takeaway for you is to try to be cognizant of when you're assuming ignorance inappropriately and to avoid being patronizing or condescending when explaining things to people. In the event that somebody does call you out for it in the moment, listen to them. Start from the assumption that they have a valid point, and only conclude that they don't after determining for certain that they're just trying to deflect from being wrong.

This, again, is beautifully ironic. I'm going to assume you're aware why.

adjl posted...

The important thing to remember is that, like most microaggressions, an individual instance of mansplaining generally isn't going to be a big deal. The analogy I see tossed around a lot is that microaggressions are like mosquito bites: One is annoying, but not really a big deal. By the time you get up to a few dozen, though, you're ready to personally rip the proboscis off of any mosquito that even looks at you. When somebody gets mad at you for mansplaining or any other microaggression, they're not mad at you for committing some grievous fault, they're mad at a broader problem that has been bothering them for a while and which you have become a part of. Rather than defending yourself and insisting that their response is unreasonable, try to stop being part of the problem and instead sympathize with their frustration. Insisting that you're only one straw isn't going to fix the camel's back.

The important thing to remember is that if you constantly go through life with people questioning what you know, it's much more likely to be you not demonstrating competence than tHe SyStEm oppressing you. I'm sure people who lack self-esteem do take offense from every little thing even when it has nothing to do with them until they snap and say some stupid shit like this. It doesn't, however, make the complaint any more valid.

It's literally the perception of someone who feels sleighted based on information they aren't privy to. When people who make these claims actually back how they're being treated differently and how it isn't fair in these circumstances, we can have a conversation about avoiding it. Until then, I'm going to treat it exactly as it is presented, presumptuous and ill-intended.

ZangsBeard posted...

Tbf, I am a poopy head.

https://youtu.be/-BZk9MQa0YA?t=201



adjl posted...

That's not actual mansplaining, though. That's just people falling back on the term any time they don't want to listen to what a dude is saying.

That may have been how the term originated, but it's rarely how it's used now - so its original meaning is almost... well... meaningless.

It's like the term "troll". It originally meant something very specific. Now it's basically just used to refer to almost anyone acting like an asshole (which isn't what it's supposed to mean), or even worse, to refer to pretty much anyone "who disagrees with me".

I'd even lump it in with terms like "problematic" and "toxic", which have been so misused and abused in online discourse to the point where someone simply using them at all is kind of a huge ideological red flag that you are no longer having an actual sincere conversation in good faith, but are being subjected to agenda-driven rhetoric.

It's a large part of what makes discussing social issues (especially on the Internet) such a futile waste of time. Because even if you potentially agree with a concept in principle, the overuse of loaded terminology and appeals to emotion turns the entire thing into a fecal mess. No one is really thinking for themselves, they're just parroting back things they've heard other people say and getting overwhelmed by their own feelings.



adjl posted...

People don't get offended by having their knowledge questioned.

Have you actually met any people? People get offended by having their knowledge questioned all the time. There are literally multiple aspects of psychology that directly address how the brain handles having its preconceptions questioned (ie, poorly).

Sure, being a condescending asshole about it can certainly turn people against you more effectively, but even if you play the role of the most understanding and polite person you can be, there will still be people who take offense at being told they don't already know everything there is to know about a particular subject, even if what they actually know mostly boils down to jack and shit. That's the root of things like the DunningKruger Effect and confirmation bias.

It's most pronounced on the Internet because it's easy to dismiss the qualifications of the person you're talking to without even knowing the qualifications of the person you're talking to ("What he says must be true, his dad works for Nintendo!"). But a habit of dismissing bad faith arguments has left a lot of people completely unwilling to listen to or even consider good faith arguments either. And to react with what is essentially ad hominem attacks to condemn the speaker without even judging their words.

"Mansplaining" has essentially evolved from "You're talking down to her because she's a woman" to "You don't know what you're talking about because you're a man". Which is why it's ultimately become worthless as a concept and a rhetorical tool of shitty people.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The irony here being that you accuse me of extremely narrow personal experience, while simulatenously saying you've never offended anybody by questioning their experience.

I think you're using "questioning their experience" to mean "doubting their experience," which is not at all what I'm suggesting. Your failure to understand the difference between that and looking to establish a baseline for how much jargon is appropriate might be why you think this isn't a you problem.

Think about it for even a second and you should realize how ridiculous your position is: You're literally suggesting that it's less common for people to be annoyed by somebody assuming they understand nothing than by somebody asking how much they understand. Nothing about that sounds even remotely plausible at any level.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Does the majority of the world call people mansplainers? No? Then maybe you're confused because you're looking at irrelevant information. This is about the few people who use the term, not the general public. It's not especially difficult to spend your life without coming across these 70 and below IQ people.

Protip: If you're going to tell everyone that you hold the attitude of "anyone who doesn't like me assuming they're stupid is just stupid," you're going to have a very difficult time convincing anyone that you don't assume people are stupid far more often than is appropriate.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The important thing to remember is that if you constantly go through life with people questioning what you know, it's much more likely to be you not demonstrating competence than tHe SyStEm oppressing you.

Most actual mansplaining happens in contexts where there hasn't yet been an opportunity to demonstrate competence.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When people who make these claims actually back how they're being treated differently and how it isn't fair in these circumstances, we can have a conversation about avoiding it.

There was a picture that circulated a year or so back of a woman shooting a pistol, and a very significant number of comments on it were men saying things like "she should be holding it with both hands" or otherwise providing completely unsolicited advice, obviously labouring under the assumption that the woman in question had no idea what she was doing. The woman in question was an olympic gold medalist, pictured at the olympics, competing in an event where her displayed technique was perfectly in line with the rules of the event.

A friend of mine was once discussing makeup with a colleague, and when she mentioned highliighter, one of her male colleagues who happened to overhear interjected with "no, you're thinking of eyeliner, highlighters are markers." She was, in fact, talking about neither eyeliner nor markers.

No, unsolicited bad advice is not exclusively a sexist thing, but it is something that women experience very often due to the prevailing attitude of "if I think a woman is making a mistake, she must be making a mistake." It's often not a deliberate act of sexism, but it is behaviour that's generally more tolerated in that form than vice versa, which is why there's a push to explicitly call it out.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Until then, I'm going to treat it exactly as it is presented, presumptuous and ill-intended.

Alternatively, you can try to resist the urge to offer unsolicited advice and/or make sure you understand the situation completely before thinking that you know what advice might be appropriate. Those are, after all, fairly simple adjustments to make that will improve pretty much everyone's experience whether they explicitly have a problem with your behaviour or not.

I will never understand people who wilfully resist making trivial changes to themselves and their behaviour that will make them a better person and help improve the world around them.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That may have been how the term originated, but it's rarely how it's used now - so its original meaning is almost... well... meaningless.

Which is where this approach comes in:
adjl posted...

"This isn't mansplaining, you're just wrong."

It's still a worthwhile concept to consider and try to avoid in one's daily life, regardless of whether or not it's being misused. Any such accusations should trigger a bit of introspection, even if the ultimate conclusion of that introspection is that there's no actual problem and you can settle on "no you're just wrong."

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Have you actually met any people? People get offended by having their knowledge questioned all the time.

Again, it's the distinction between "questioning" in the sense of "doubting" and "questioning" in the sense of "you've made it clear to me that you want me to talk about this subject about which I know a lot, how much do you already know?" People don't get offended by that. At least, not more than they would by "I'm just going to assume you know nothing and talk to you accordingly," which is the alternative being presented.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's most pronounced on the Internet because it's easy to dismiss the qualifications of the person you're talking to without even knowing the qualifications of the person you're talking to ("What he says must be true, his dad works for Nintendo!"). But a habit of dismissing bad faith arguments has left a lot of people completely unwilling to listen to or even consider good faith arguments either. And to react with what is essentially ad hominem attacks to condemn the speaker without even judging their words.

It's also more pronounced because being polite and understanding and making a genuine effort to help educate people on the Internet is substantially less common than just calling each other idiots for not believing what one already knows.

I would be happy to teach any guy how to change a tire on a vehicle. Is that womansplaining? People should know how to do that anyway. I saw a story about a mechanic working on a car and it ran him over since he didnt block the tires. I even do that when jacking up a lawnmower.

adjl posted...

Most actual mansplaining happens in contexts where there hasn't yet been an opportunity to demonstrate competence.

...and the reasonable assumption of someone you've never seen do anything isn't that they know these things. When you haven't demonstrated competence, there's no reason to assume you have it. It's the sensible move to start from scratch, and incorporate what they know as they show it. I know you like to patronise people and surround yourself with yes men, but that's not how things are everywhere.

adjl posted...

There was a picture that circulated a year or so back of a woman shooting a pistol, and a very significant number of comments on it were men saying things like "she should be holding it with both hands" or otherwise providing completely unsolicited advice, obviously labouring under the assumption that the woman in question had no idea what she was doing. The woman in question was an olympic gold medalist, pictured at the olympics, competing in an event where her displayed technique was perfectly in line with the rules of the event.

This is applied to both genders. This is a perfect example of taking a bad faith assumption when it's inappropriate. In this instance they were ignorant of the circumstances, however their advice was accurate as far as their knowledge informed them. You're also talking about randoms on the internet talking at a picture, where it's standard to speak first, think later. You picked a pretty poor example there.

adjl posted...

A friend of mine was once discussing makeup with a colleague, and when she mentioned highliighter, one of her male colleagues who happened to overhear interjected with "no, you're thinking of eyeliner, highlighters are markers." She was, in fact, talking about neither eyeliner nor markers.

Again, as far as his knowledge told him, that was accurate. He was unaware of that, and heard a disjointed sentence as far as he knew. Nothing here suggested he went "She's a woman, she must be confused", it's simply "I know what a highlighter is, that's not a highlighter.".

It's like you're unaware that stupid people exist, and how much their mouths run on autopilot.

adjl posted...

No, unsolicited bad advice is not exclusively a sexist thing, but it is something that women experience very often due to the prevailing attitude of "if I think a woman is making a mistake, she must be making a mistake." It's often not a deliberate act of sexism, but it is behaviour that's generally more tolerated in that form than vice versa, which is why there's a push to explicitly call it out.

This is an assumption, an extremely pervasive one. Yes, men are probably more likely to run their mouths like this, no it is not exclusively or substantially targeted at women.

Here is the problem; it's something that happens to everybody, but certain women take it personally and say a stupid, sexist assumption to bite back. Everybody else can just brush it off as stream of consciousness reactions and never think about it again. There is no "mansplaining", just self-conscious, bitter women perpetuating whatever gives them an excuse to be aggressive.

adjl posted...

Alternatively, you can try to resist the urge to offer unsolicited advice and/or make sure you understand the situation completely before thinking that you know what advice might be appropriate. Those are, after all, fairly simple adjustments to make that will improve pretty much everyone's experience whether they explicitly have a problem with your behaviour or not.

I will never understand people who wilfully resist making trivial changes to themselves and their behaviour that will make them a better person and help improve the world around them.

I will never understand people who will willfully play along with a malicous delusion to appease someone who's being aggressive. Shitty people deserve a shitty behaviour in kind, to make clear that aggression will not be tolerated, particularly to imaginary threats.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You elaborated on how people make wild assumptions about others in bad faith. You are a good example of one of those people.

yeah maybe but my assumptions here were right

Krazy_Kirby posted...

no.

condescension has nothing to do with gender.

Not inherently, no. But in the particular case of mansplaining, the condescension is very much inextricably linked to gender.

i think i accidentally mansplained the other day when i was just trying to relate to something. my b sry dude. ._.

adjl posted...

Again, it's the distinction between "questioning" in the sense of "doubting" and "questioning" in the sense of "you've made it clear to me that you want me to talk about this subject about which I know a lot, how much do you already know?" People don't get offended by that. At least, not more than they would by "I'm just going to assume you know nothing and talk to you accordingly," which is the alternative being presented.

I do this basically all the time if someone asks me about electronics or physics. I'm more educated than most people about those subjects, no questions asked, I've got a degree in it.
Like, asking "how does a wire work" is a 100% perfectly reasonable question, and basically impossible to answer to someone depending on what they're looking at, and what their education is.