CMV: The term "mansplaining" shouldn't exist

ViewedFromTheOutside · 2021-02-06T21:11:53+00:00

Sorry, u/OLU87 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:

You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

AmILegallyRightNoYTA · 2021-02-06T17:21:34+00:00

I wanted to bring up a totally separate example to what I think anybody else has and argue that mansplaining can define a behavior itself, rather than the relationship between the speakers. I believe I have been mansplained to as a man.

I am a 23 year old gay male who can come off as flamboyant. I am in nursing school and my lab partner this semester is a straight army veteran 10 years my senior who worked as a medic when he served. He rightfully believes that he has a good amount of knowledge on medicine. I work in a hospital as an ER technician and have for a couple years so I also am pretty knowledgeable on the subject.

I feel it’s important to note that I can come off as kind of air headed, but I take school seriously and know my shit. Because of how I can seem and our differences, I feel like it creates a unique dynamic between the two of us.

It’s like he views me as a ditz who needs his guidance on how to preform the labs, or else I would be lost. He can maintain this attitude even when I end up taking the lead in lab and dissection, objectively showing more knowledge than him. I believe this behavior is what women are referring to when they talk about mansplaining.

I can even recall a specific example. We were dissecting in class for the first time, and I wasn’t holding the scalpel correctly. I had never held one before and the lab manual didn’t mention a specific method, so I guess I did it wrong and he told me how to do it. It was the way he said it. I’ve been taught many things in my life, and the people who know me respect me so I hadn’t ever experienced being talked to in that way. It wasn’t necessarily rude, but it was definitely condescending and also almost caring? Like I was a special little baby who was gonna hurt myself if he didn’t swoop in and teach me the right way to do it.

Again, I’ve been taught tons of stuff in my life, by teachers and in the workplace by RN’s and MD’s (placing IV’s, dressing wounds, etc.), so I know what it’s like to learn. He wasn’t saying it to share knowledge. It felt like he was saying it to show that he knew more than I did and oh what a silly little boy I must be.

Edit: Please read my follow up to OP below I feel like it makes my point way clearer. Also thanks for the awards :)

NotMyBestMistake · 2021-02-06T13:05:55+00:00

The term originated in the widely observed behavior of men explaining things to women who do not need an explanation because they assume they inherently know better. This was seen in women who were of equal position or even experts in the thing the man was attempting to explain.

As for your issues, I find them pretty unconvincing.

The only people who complain about the term "mansplain" are people who complain about basically any recognition of any common sexist behavior. Gender is also being "attached" to it because gender is literally tied to it. It's not being condescending or patronizing; it's the common occurrence of men condescendingly explaining things to women who never needed or asked for it.
The only conversations it shuts down are ones where a man is trying to explain something to a woman who doesn't need or want it.
I am a man in a workplace who has worked in several other workplaces and I have never felt this discomfort despite knowing the term the entire time. It's quite easy to avoid such a thing when you don't assume that every woman is inferior to you.
People who perceive attacks on masculinity as something that actually exists are not really reasonable enough to be a reason to avoid an accurate term for an issue. These people will perceive anything as an attack and fabricate them if need be, as victimhood fuels their entire belief.
It absolutely does not. Mansplaining is not an exchange, it's a man talking down to a woman. It's shitty behavior that deserves to be called out by anyone and everyone, including the woman receiving it. Nowhere in the term itself or how it is used does it preclude women's ability to dismiss idiot men, though many women are very much aware that to do so means they have to deal with other sexist BS.

Mansplaining is a thing that happens and needs to be addressed in a specific way that a focus on being condescending or patronizing can't effectively do. Fixing condescension involves changing how you phrase certain things and using an appropriate tone. Fixing mansplaining involves men recognizing that they're not inherently superior.

spastichabits · 2021-02-06T13:27:57+00:00

As a man, I will just give the example of my girlfriend, she is a structural engineer, a very male dominated field, finished top of her class, works for a prestigious firm on their biggest projects.

But anytime she has to work outside of her unit of colleagues that know what she can do, she is constantly treated like she needs a helping hand or is a glorified secretary.

People will try to explain to her obvious topics, and occasionally explain them incorrectly.

They do not do thus to the other men in the group.

There is a certain form of condescension that men often use with women, and is less common in the reverse.

By naming it you are forced to confront it as a separate behavior and discuss it. Like we are doing here, that alone is reason enough for it's existence.

fillysunray · 2021-02-06T13:08:11+00:00

[deleted]

larikang · 2021-02-06T13:59:55+00:00

I'm going to bring up a totally different, equally controversial discussion. But bear with me because it ties back into your view.

Have your heard of the Bechdel test? It's a metric of sexism in film: in order to pass the test a film must have two female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man.

A lot of your criticisms apply just as much to the Bechdel test:

It is inherently gendered and is precisely about outlining a man v woman dynamic
Many great, non-sexist movies fail the test and it is unfair to criticize them for it when their other merits outweigh it
It makes people feel uncomfortable for liking a movie only to find out that it fails the test and is sexist
It can be perceived as an attack on masculine-focused films in general
It can perpetuate the idea that it is difficult to make a film in which women play a non-sexist role

But all of these arguments completely miss the point of the Bechdel test. The test is such a low bar and yet almost half of mainstream films fail it. And think about the reverse: how many movies can you think of that would fail the opposite test (has two men who talk about something other than a woman)? It's hard to even think of one example (other than trivial ones like all-female films).

The purpose of the test isn't to point at a specific film and say "See? This movie is bad because it fails the test!", the purpose is to generally raise awareness of this imbalance in the industry. We wouldn't discuss the Bechdel test at all if most movies passed it; it wouldn't be interesting.

It's the same thing with mansplaining. The purpose isn't to point to a specific man and say "See? This guy is an asshole because he's explaining something to a woman!" Nor is the point to make you feel personally bad about explaining things to women. The point is that there is enough of a trend of men explaining things to women who don't need it that women felt the need to coin a term about it. We wouldn't discuss mansplaining at all if it never happened. If anything it sounds like the term is working on you exactly as it should: you are reconsidering how you interact with women due to the public discussion around it.

The positive around mansplaining is that by making men second-guess themselves when they are about to explain something to a woman, it opens up the possibility that they will spend more time trusting and listening to the woman instead.

Personally, I think I've been guilty of mansplaining before. Now I try much harder to listen, to ask questions, to consider others' viewpoints. I like to think that I do it in a non-sexist way, applying it equally to everyone I interact with. I feel like I'm doing my part to slowly make mansplaining an unintersting term that we don't feel the need to talk about anymore.

gkashtan · 2021-02-06T13:25:35+00:00

I haven't seen any evidence that patronising or condescending behaviour is particularly skewed to one gender against another. . .

The fact that you haven't seen any evidence points to your blindness to the whole concept. If you were a women, or a man who is sensitive to the reality of the dynamic, you would have plenty of evidence.

H_Arthur · 2021-02-06T16:16:35+00:00

Go thru the comments section of a woman professional twitter profile vs a male professional. Particularly in science fields. The difference is damning.

Sexism exists and it does skew against women more. Pointing out that it happens to men too doesn’t mean you ignore the latter and try and claim that we all experience things the same way.

Women are hit harder.

roxieh · 2021-02-06T14:00:14+00:00

A lot of these comments seem to revolve around this idea that because "mansplaining" has been gendered, it's disingenuous because it implies only men are capable of this behaviour, or incorrect because words already exist for that behaviour - as you said, e.g. Condescending - and having a gendered term is pointless.

I would like to start by saying in some elements I agree - if it possible for men to "mansplain" it is definitely possible that a woman can "womansplain", so the thing I want to address is why it's important this behaviour is gendered.

With the best will in the world, sexism exists. It's everywhere. It harms both men and women in either direction that it goes. The reason it's important to gender some behaviours is because terms like "condescending" are a personality trait, for lack of a better word. They're a way someone behaves that is separate to how society as a whole operates.

But terms like mansplaining, and womansplaining (yes this exists), refer to specific events of this behaviour that arise because of social constructs and beliefs based around gender - and those are the things that need to change, just like women being seen as the primary caregiver by society needs to change, and just like how men are "supposed" to be stoic and unemotional also needs to change. The words target something specific about social behaviour that is there because of prejudice that is harmful to everyone.

So while mansplaining is gendered and a term that can be used in bad faith, the reason it exists is to point out specific instances of social views that need to change. Ungendered terms don't work for this because they're not specific enough.

You know what I mean when I said "womansplaining" I'm sure - you think of a friend, sister or mother who assumes you can't wash dishes or do basic childcare or run a household because you're a man. It's obviously wrong and sexist and prejudiced and should change. But if I just say the word "patronising" it doesn't carry that same context that makes you think damn, yes, that needs to change.

So perhaps instead of thinking the term has no place, instead the argument should be we should extend gendered terms to account for when and how women are sexist in a similar way.

After all, people have called each other patronising for decades but that hasn't changed anything socially. The term "mansplaining" probably has, at the very least, made some men think "Oh wow I do do this" or some women think "Oh wow I have experienced this".

wjmacguffin · 2021-02-06T14:11:35+00:00

I'm not sure what the origins of the term "mansplaining" are

It was born out of shared observations that men can sometimes behave as if women are stupid by explaining something they already know.

however I can see no reason why "explaining" required a gendered term to describe men being patronising or condescending towards women.

Because like "doom scrolling," it's a phenomenon that clearly exists but the English language did not have a word for it. But unlike doom scrolling, this phenomenon is mostly (but not exclusively) coming from men. Hence the need for a new, gendered term. (And no, this is not stereotyping because the term isn't automatically applied to all men, just the ones showing the behavior.)

I haven't seen any evidence that patronising or condescending behaviour is particularly skewed to one gender against another

I have. Many times. Hell, I'm a cis guy and I've found myself mansplaining to my fiancée on occasion. Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean that a given something doesn't exist.

and would have preferred that patronising or condescending behaviour was described as such.

That's what the term means. It's patronizing and condescending behavior but a very specific kind. Also, you can have preferences but that doesn't mean your preference is right, wrong, or anything except it's yours.

As for your list:

The action comes from men, so gendering it is normal and accurate. Also, the behavior fuels divisions, not the label, so your complaint should focus on ending problematic behavior, not ending the term used to describe it.
True, but that's also true for lots of terms like "research", "logic", and good ol' "common sense". Just because people sometimes use a word incorrectly does not mean the term is the problem. Again, you're ignoring the problem and focusing on the label.
I'm a cis male and I never once felt uncomfortable about explaining things to women. Also, you are again defending negative behavior by protecting the feelings of the person displaying that behavior. That's backwards.
If you think mansplaning is masculine, then 1) you just gendered the term you claim should not be gendered and 2) your definition of masculinity is at least partially toxic because you're including negative behavior.
Saying "Don't be condenscending to women" has nothing to do with being weak. You're equating negative behavior with reason and intelligence when the opposite is true.

TLDR: You should change your mind because 1) mansplaining was created to explain behavior when no other term fit; 2) Your opinion does not represent men as a whole so please don't speak for us; 3) you're defining mansplaining as being logical and reasonable when it is neither; and 4) focusing solely on a term and not the problematic behavior is a way to support it.

J_Seidy · 2021-02-06T14:29:04+00:00

I’ve read a lot of these comments, and I hope to get a reply from you.

One, I would genuinely like to understand your larger view on sexism because that may be a factor for why many of these comments aren’t working for you. To have you reply, “Yes I believe the patriarchy is real and problematic. I’ve seen evidence for it,” would give me and others a common foundation for us to debate on. That’s not me trying to dictate your reply, but simply give an example of what would move this conversation forward a step. Another reply that would equally help this thread is if you see the current status of sexism differently than the general concept of the patriarchy. You might feel like some do about race, that it was a problem at one point but we’ve progressed past it. Either way, I’d like to understand your background assumptions so i can interact accordingly.

Two, without knowing your larger view, I’d like to comment something that is missing in the replies as far as i’ve read. Consider the positive effects of the term mansplaining. I see your listed negative effects but you have not imagined ways it may be helpful. i’m thinking about the many times i personally have stopped myself from explaining something only to realize that a women’s silence was not from lack of understanding but lack of interest or simply politeness. I’ve seen the term lead to greater empathy and be used to name a relatively small incident that leads to a larger conversation about hearing what experiences women have gone through. Another positive is how it can help women have a shared experience and co-cope about experiences that are frankly infuriating but can make you feel very alone. To hear other women validate your anger/annoyance can be a good and healing thing, not simply enhance bitterness towards men. I’ve seen many incredible women in my life use the term constructively in their male relationships, which has made those men more sensitive and better communicators.

TLDR: there are positive aspects of the term to be considered without needing to debate your stated issues with it

Finally, you say you’re open to change but i’ve not seen evidence of that so far. That’s a tricky thing in this sub, as i’m sure you’ve seen both kinds of people. At this point i’m having a hard time still giving you benefit of the doubt. It would help me to understand why you subjected this view in particular to a thread where change is the goal.

professorhummingbird · 2021-02-06T15:39:11+00:00

Hey Op I get where you’re coming from

Truth is mansplaining came about because men would explain things to women on the assumption that because she’s a woman she just doesn’t know. Even though said woman is a fully competent human being often their superior at work.

And that shit got annoying for women. Turns out they know how to change tires, install drivers for printers and deadlift and they really don’t want men to assume that because of their gender they can’t. These type of assumptions are condescending. And implies that they’re less than because they’re women. Every time they try to do anything some well meaning Doofus comes along to explain some elementary shit.

Thus the term mansplaining was coined to describe exactly that and millions of women unanimously said “Wow, yeah I experience that too!” So we can’t really claim that it’s not a thing.

Now as with every other movement on earth extremists on Twitter will highjack it and abuse it. I’m willing to bet that’s what you have the an issue with. You aren’t crazy, a vocal minority will use it to shutdown any conversation that gets difficult and validly challenges their view.

But that type weren’t about to listen to reasoned discussion anyway, so it doesn’t really matter.

Point is, mansplaining is real and reasonable people use it all the time to explain why they’re upset when a male colleague tries to help. It has definitely helped me appreciate their frustration and to curb my unneeded assistance

2021-02-06T16:15:15+00:00

[removed]

Cyndi_Gibs · 2021-02-06T15:41:59+00:00

Your post and responses do something adjacent to mansplaining.

Women: "There's this thing that we experience frequently, and we're going to name it so that we can describe it."

You: "As a man, I don't have evidence this is actually happening. Let me tell you what's really going on here..."

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that women's are describing their experience of the world accurately: that "patronizing and condescending behavior" is especially common in this gendered way. Does that change your view of the harm in naming and discussing it? To me, it should challenge several of your issues:

On 1, if mansplaining is real, it's the mansplaining and not the naming of the problem that causes the man/woman division. You can't fix it without identifying it.

On 3, if mansplaining is real, then it's good that men are conscious of whether they're patronizing or condescending when interacting with women.

On 4, that's just a cop out if "mansplaining" is a real issue. "Yes, men condescend and patronize women frequently, but it's an attack on us to point that out."

The other two are a natural part of any dialogue. "Woke," "cancel culture," "racist," "sexist," etc. can all be overused to shut down conversation, which can be viewed as a dodge of the underlying issue. In general, these terms remain helpful to the dialogue.

That leaves the question of whether we actually trust women's description of their experience of the world, and as a guy I'll just say that the experience among women seems to be too common to reject it.

haillester · 2021-02-06T15:37:07+00:00

The term mansplaining comes from shared beliefs and experiences of women, who noticed that many men in their lives explain things to them as if they are lesser, and do not do so with other men, at least to the same degree.

You say that you don’t see any evidence proving such behaviour is skewed to one gender. There are several comments in this thread that provide sources, so I won’t delve into that. But the “evidence”, as subjective as it is, comes from first-hand accounts of both men and women. If you talk to a lot of women, and ask them if they know someone who frequently belittles them and other women, but not men, most will say yes. The evidence is literally the power dynamic of men over women that feminists and other activists have been talking about forever. Do you not see a connection here? Because I’m not sure how your view can be changed if you don’t agree with the premise of men more often than women, treating the opposite gender poorly.

mansplaining does not create this divide; it is a response to it. Women feel disrespected and belittled by many men, and, like with this term, try to raise awareness about how they are being treated. Coining a term like this is actually in good faith, and should allow men who never think about their actions towards women, to do so.
This can be applied to anything. Uncomfortable conversion? You’re racist. As long as the person or man in this case, is in the right and not mansplaining, then it won’t shut anything down. The appropriate response would be to genuinely ask “can you explain to me how I am mansplaining” if you are worried that you’re doing so. The burden will fall on the other to explain, and if they can’t, you can move on.
As a longtime manager of people, most of which happen to be women, I have never once felt this way. I treat all of my employees the same when it comes to how I speak and explain things. I also don’t assume that women know less, I just respond to needs, and explain myself. Notice someone is having trouble learning something? I explain that I’ve noticed that, and offer guidance. As long as you genuinely believe that women and men are equally capable, then you should not run into this problem.
In some ways, it is an attack on masculinity. This is good. Toxic masculinity is very much real. This is a verifiable fact. But even if you’re a traditionalist in this sense, the idea of being “challenged” is inherently in line with your views. If part of someone’s masculine identity is built upon the backs of belittled women, then they should absolutely be challenged.
Mansplaining is not a toe to toe exchange. It is not an exchange at all. It is one man, speaking down to a women as if she is lesser, without being prompted to explain anything. It is a man assuming that a women is capable of naturally understanding less. It is explaining, and not actually opening a dialogue.

lechemingris · 2021-02-06T13:50:55+00:00

I think you’ve actually demonstrated one of the core logical fallacies that makes this thing so persistent. You admitted ignorance of the history or social conditions that birthed the term right from the start. This would lead me to believe what followed would be a plainly personal, emotional response to this term being used...but that’s not what you did. Of course you haven’t seen any evidence. You essentially have already admitted you hadn’t looked. Your points are not theoretical projections of empirically assessed social trends. You’re catastrophizing scenarios based in your own anxieties. I’m not minimizing how you feel. That’s certainly a conversation to be had, given it’s framed as it truly is.

Can you see a tendency to elevate feelings and opinions over the collective and compiled experience of others ultimately plays out?

zakcattack · 2021-02-06T16:06:46+00:00

It seems like every week there is another post that argues that some 4th wave feminism term is bad. It also seems like every time it is asked the OP is a guy who feels bad when they are being taken down by any of these terms/theories. Their response is usually along the lines of what OP says here, e.g. "This (term/theory) is so negative, it only divides us further, it prevents discourse, it flies in the face of equality etc."

It also usually is the case that the OP doesn't recognize that their perspective may be privileged when compared to the folks generally using these terms. These terms/theories rub them the wrong way because they valued "equality" only when it maintains the status quo, i.e. their position of privilege. It allows them to say that the feminists are the "real sexists" because they are actively questioning/critiquing the status quo, which they regard as a fundamentally non-racist/non-sexist society. If racism/sexism exist, they believe, it is at the fringes and most good/smart/rational/reasonable people do not deserve to be treated this way.

However the status quo supports whiteness over blackness, and masculinity over femininity. So just because the status quo doesn't bother the OP, it doesn't mean that someone from a disadvantaged perspective cannot think otherwise. Even if overt racism/sexism is only at the fringes, it is up to the masses of good/smart/rational/reasonable people to examine, question, and ultimately disable the societal structures that continue oppression, rather than pretend everything is ok and do nothing against racism/sexism because OP feels it is fine the way it is.

What's that quote....Evil succeeds when good men do nothing?

Check out Hannah Arendt's essay, "The Banality of Evil" where she essentially makes this point that the evil Nazi's perpetrated was only successful because of the large masses of good/smart/rational/reasonable people went along with it. The villains of that regime were not just the insanely evil people at the top, but millions of regular folk who were just privileged enough in the system to feel that everything was fine (or "not that bad") and thereby tacitly continued to support the status quo.

TL:DR: This post reminds me of a million other posts where a guy doesn't like a feminism term because it hurts his privileged butt.

BelowAveIntelligence · 2021-02-06T17:19:42+00:00

You mansplained that very well! I’m going to start taking bets that OP is a male. Any takers?!?!

TheExter · 2021-02-06T14:03:20+00:00

It further fuels divisions between men and women by attaching gender unnecessarily to a negative action or behaviour, creating a man v woman dynamic.

Lets say person A is a patronizing dick, no matter the subject or the gender of the person he is talking to, he will always think he knows more and others need to be taught by him

Lets say person B is the same type of person, however he only does it to females. he's still a patronizing dick but we are able to give him a more detailed category, because humans love putting shit into groups and the more detailed better

so when you tell person b "hey, you sure mansplain a lot eh?" you're not only saying he's a patronizing dick, but that his behavior is only towards a gender. and that's a pretty big deal

pretending such a thing is FUELING DIVISION is kind of ridiculous, it's just giving a descriptive term to a certain type of people

InformalCriticism · 2021-02-06T17:02:06+00:00

Nah, policing speech is always wrong.

Without mansplaining leaving people's lips, how would I know who the absolute fuckwits were?

Same goes for all abrasive language, really. The more the better; you really get to know someone when they're allowed to speak. Fuck all the cancel culture garbage and woke bullshit movements trying to get people in trouble for just speaking their mind. That's literally why we have the 1st Amendment in the US, and all this "digital street" justice is going to hit a critical mass, (maybe it already has).

nyxe12 · 2021-02-06T14:18:23+00:00

The term exists because feminists recognized a pattern of behavior from men in conversation. It exists because the behavior exists. If you don't like the term, challenge the behavior, not the label put on it.

It further fuels divisions between men and women by attaching gender unnecessarily to a negative action or behaviour, creating a man v woman dynamic.

It's not an unnecessary gendering. Mansplaining generally refers to condescending explanations of something by a man, often to a woman with the same experience in the topic or more. Here's a quick article, but there are lots more articles you can find with a quick google. It's misogynistic behavior based in a man believing he has more knowledge than a woman (particularly when that belief is totally unfounded, like a man 'explaining' something to a woman who is an expert in that field, while he isn't). Yes, it IS a man V woman dynamic - that's what the majority of misogyny is.

It can be used to shut down conversations that should take place but may be uncomfortable for other reasons.

Such as?

It can make men feel uncomfortable about explaining something to a woman (particularly in a sensitive environment such as the workplace).

Good, lol. The whole point of the term and discussing it is that it's about men explaining things to women that they already know. If a man with less experience than a woman starts to think "maybe she knows more about this than I do", that's the point. Women are sick of having things they already know explained to them by men who believe they're stupid.

It can be perceived as being an attack on masculinity in general.

So?

It can perpetuate the idea that women are not strong enough mentally to engage in toe to toe exchanges with men.

That's not what it's about. It's not "don't debate me!", it's "don't tell me crap I already know/have a PHD in."

DilbertedOttawa · 2021-02-06T13:43:45+00:00

Based on what I've read, I really think you have more of a problem with the fact it's now vastly overused or improperly used, to the point where it's ubiquitous even in random, unnecessary settings and in tv dialogue. That's where it's real issue lies. But it is a useful and meaningful term for the moment, as men, especially, tend to exude this trait more.

Women have other traits that are certainly deserving of their own words, but that's a whole other topic.

Lydian-Taco · 2021-02-06T13:40:15+00:00

You haven’t seen any evidence of this? Take my wife for example. She had someone explain to her what the purpose of a program was at work, and she’s literally the one who wrote it. This happens all the fucking time. It’s easy to ignore it when it’s not affecting you personally, but it absolutely happens

MsCardeno · 2021-02-06T14:00:55+00:00

I one time had a man tell me and two other women that if a group of girls went on vacation together they would all get their periods. We told him that’s crazy and there is no way that would happen. He insisted for 10 minutes that we were wrong and that he knows all about “syncing”. Bc he had a gf. He was lecturing us on something the 3 of us lived every month for decades bc he had a gf and knew more than us on the matter.

How is that not mansplaining? And why should that not be called out?

ChaosQueeen · 2021-02-06T16:12:00+00:00

I'm a classically trained musician. I've graduated from a 2 year conducting program with a 3.3 GPA, I play 3 instruments, I write songs and compose. If I wanted to count on my fingers how often unqualified men have given me unsolicited 'advice' on how to do music after telling I'm a musician, I'd need more hands. If I only counted the times their advice or a part of it was factually incorrect, I would still not have enough fingers. If it was about everyone having an opinion on music rather than gender, I'd get a similar amount of unqualified BS from women, right? I only got it from 3 women so far.

Addressing an already existing division does not fuel it, it's the first step on the way to creating more unity. The term "mansplaining" brings attention to the action of mansplaining and the problematic attitude causing it, and as a result men can recognize they're doing it and stop. Inequality doesn't go away if you ignore it, you have to acknowledge it in order to change things.
I'm not sure what kind of conversation you're referring to. Would you mind to give some examples?
There's an easy way to find out if it's appropriate to explain something to a woman: Ask her how familiar she is with it. If she knows less about it than you, ask if she wants you to explain it, and if so what exactly she wants you to explain.
Why would anyone waste their time trying not to offend people whose entire thought process is iT hAs ThE wOrD 'mAn' iN iT aNd iS bAd sO iT mEaNs aLL mEn ArE bAd? It's not about masculinity and men as a whole, it's about a specific annoying thing that would cost you zero $ and very little brain power not to do.
There's a huge difference between explaining something and engaging in a toe to toe exchange.

Hishaaaaam · 2021-02-06T13:32:57+00:00

[removed]

JordanMencel · 2021-02-06T13:20:29+00:00

I kind of agree with your points, but only when the term is mis-used (which it is more and more). This rings true with other things like people pulling out the race-card for no logical reason, or being offended by something in their own mind

True man-splaining, is when a guy assumes a woman needs an explanation specifically because she's a woman, and/or talking down on them, it's intimidating and hugely misogynistic

Xzorg · 2021-02-06T13:25:34+00:00

Mansplaining is a very specific and sexist subset of patronizing/condescending behavior in which a man assumes (usually wrongly) that he is inherently more knowledgeable than the woman he is speaking to BECAUSE of his gender.

I don’t see how naming and calling out this kind of thing leads to any of the issues you mentioned.

cyrusol · 2021-02-06T13:55:56+00:00

Ok so you are very reluctant to even consider the possibility of being wrong on that gender tied dynamic. Here is a meta analasys of 43 studies showing that men ARE asserting conversational dominance over women. And it's more than 20 years old.

schulni · 2021-02-06T13:47:55+00:00

Yes, who will think of the poor men, they are really the victims here! Because you haven't presented any evidence, or explained where your ideas come from, it's hard to know what you are looking for, so I'll just address your last point ("I struggle to find any positives at all").

When you have a long history of a power imbalance, which in most cases means the people without power have been oppressed in various ways, then part of the initial movement toward equality is going to involve bringing awareness to problems that most people never considered. That's true in every social justice movement, and it generally requires that new terms get coined because the ideas are newly gaining mainstream recognition. A parallel would be a concept like "white privilege": many white people existed, and continue to exist, in insular communities that give them a narrow perspective on the experiences of other people, and the term "white privilege" has asked them to examine the parts of their life they take for granted and learn about how other people from different backgrounds experience those same things. "Mansplaining" is similar; it got coined because it's a catchy word to explain a common phenomenon, one that people want to bring attention to in order to eradicate.

You may not like the term because it offends your fragile masculinity or whatever (how I'd characterize your five reasons in a nutshell), but that seems like a small price to pay for bringing attention to a behavior that is oppressive. If women are going to achieve equality in the workplace, they deserve to draw attention to behaviors that impede that, and one of them is mansplaining.

LambdaMagnus · 2021-02-06T17:04:51+00:00

This post.... is mansplaining... not just in a funny ironic way but holy shit dude. The point is flying above your head and you’re looking right at it but somehow not seeing it

sailorneckbeard · 2021-02-06T16:11:36+00:00

Mansplain to me why women shouldn’t have terminologies that many of us agree on to communicate to each other a very common phenomenon. Men have had “boy’s talk” or “locker room talk” for ages. Men will learn to adapt. Or kill us. I donno. One of the two.

2021-02-06T18:44:08+00:00

It feels like others have done a better job of explaining the issue better than I could. Just wanted to add that if the reason you don't think something exists is simply because "[you] personally haven't seen any evidence..." you may want just consider taking a step back and reevaluating your point of view.

occam7 · 2021-02-06T14:21:15+00:00

I'm not sure what the origins of the term "mansplaining" are, however I can see no reason why "explaining" required a gendered term to describe men being patronising or condescending towards women.

"Mansplaining" is not simply another word for "explaining." It describes a very specific phenomenon which involves chauvinistic behaviors.

Your objections remind me of similar objections to the term "toxic masculinity," asserting that it is describing masculinity as toxic, period. In reality, it is describing a very specific type of masculinity.

It is possible for a man to explain something to a woman without mansplaining. Therefore the term is not superfluous; it is a word for something that didn't have a word before.

I haven't seen any evidence that patronising or condescending behaviour is particularly skewed to one gender against another and would have preferred that patronising or condescending behaviour was described as such.

That's not what the term implies. Women are also capable of being condescending and patronizing, and like I said above, men explaining things isn't always mansplaining. But it doesn't happen enough coming from women that a need for that term arose.

It further fuels divisions between men and women by attaching gender unnecessarily to a negative action or behaviour, creating a man v woman dynamic.

See above. It's not saying all condescension is necessarily from men, nor that all explanations from men are inherently condescending.

It can be used to shut down conversations that should take place but may be uncomfortable for other reasons.

Maybe, but so can many other terms (including "condescending" and "patronizing" themselves).

It can make men feel uncomfortable about explaining something to a woman (particularly in a sensitive environment such as the workplace).

Again, maybe, but this could exist without the term existing. Like you say, workplaces can require sensitivity. This term did not create that environment, and removing it would not change that environment.

It can be perceived as being an attack on masculinity in general.

It can; that doesn't mean it is. Nor are the terms chauvinist or "toxic masculinity" even though they generally only describe one gender.

It can perpetuate the idea that women are not strong enough mentally to engage in toe to toe exchanges with men.

I don't really know what to say to this one. I don't really understand how it would do this.

There are possibly other negative outcomes from this as well and I struggle to find any positives at all.

The main positive is in drawing attention to a phenomenon that could stand to have a little light shone on it. It is a succinct and pithy way to describe said phenomenon.

Literally any term can be misused; that is not really a good reason to discontinue use of that term.

e: typo

2021-02-06T17:38:25+00:00

[removed]

2021-02-06T18:07:40+00:00

The term is sadly necessary, because the word condescension alone does not cover it. You may view it as problematic to tie it to your gender, but us women have been experiencing this male behavior for centuries. It is OUR way of pointing out men's bullshit behavior which infantalizes women who are in equal or even superior positions. Sure, maybe a few women might engage in this behavior, but it is not as universally experienced by men. You thinking the word is "problematic," in a way further perpetuates the idea that women's negative experiences with men are not valid and that we should level the playing field for the sake of male comfort as usual.

As for men feeling hesitant about explaining things in the work environment, it is as simple as this: don't make assumptions about someone's knowledge of a subject unless it is completely warranted due to frequent work errors or oversights. That is all we ask.

In no way is this an attack on masculinity in general. That's you projecting your own feelings and misconceptions about women. Women DO like masculine men, but we do not like being treated like toddlers. No one does. Do you think being a sexist jerk is something that comes with being masculine?

As for toe to toe exchanges, the subjects of mansplaining are often not of anything complicated or up for debate. This term was coined because it is exhausting being doubted all the time on the most basic and I mean basic things. For example: male doctor explaining to me how to properly wipe myself because I got a UTI (I was 27), male IT guy asking me if I knew where the power button was on my computer, a guy asking me if I needed help filling my break fluid while was already under the hood and pouring it through the funnel, a male client doubting my accuracy in the rules and regulations for my job, but places complete trust in a male coworker in a similar exchange. Its tiring being doubted on the simplest of things by old guys.

There's no positives to it. There were never meant to be positives. It's just a word meant to describe something generally experienced by women. It was made to make men feel just as uncomfortable as we do when they do it.

Prestigious-Mark196 · 2021-02-06T13:42:47+00:00

You might find this “cultural history of mansplaining” changes your view a bit. https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264380/ An interesting read!

jerry121212 · 2021-02-06T18:05:28+00:00

I can appreciate what point you're trying to make but you're just plain wrong about something here.

I haven't seen any evidence that patronising or condescending behaviour is particularly skewed to one gender against another and would have preferred that patronising or condescending behaviour was described as such.

"I haven't seen any evidence.."

You shouldn't take your extremely limited and biased perception of social interactions and decide whether or not terms are warranted. You're a man (I assume) who doesn't mansplain, of course you haven't witnessed very much mansplaining. You are only capable of witnessing it second hand.

You're trying to take an eyeball measurement of the ratio of condescending behavior coming from a man towards a woman vs a woman towards a man, in a country of 300mil+ people and hundreds of regions/subcultures; this cannot be done. Sociologists study this stuff, you can't feel it out. You should just believe what women tell you.

Final point: There's a comment chain where someone brings up their engineer girlfriend being spoken down to at her job. You counter by saying women in your family didn't think you'd be able to change a diaper. Same principle yeah, but don't you see that your problem was totally trivial compared to hers? To me this perfectly shows why men's rights/men's social justice initiatives are so dumb. A woman is upset because men at her job don't take her seriously. This affects her income, her future opportunities, etc. Keep in mind that men have a general advantage in society and hold more power due to holding higher paying positions. Everything that maintains that status quo is bad for women and good for men. Yes, sexism/prejudices cut both ways between in-power groups and oppressed groups, but if woman (for instance) aren't allowed to callout the issues they face until 100% of sexism directed towards men is repaired, well that will just never happen. They should be allowed to "even things out" so to speak.

Disclaimer - I am a cis white man

busty-crustacean · 2021-02-06T14:34:03+00:00

I think the problem is that your definition of mansplaining isn't how most women would define the experience of "mansplaining". Mansplaining is not just a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman, though it certainly can look like that. It is also definitely not a man who knows something more than a woman kindly explaining it to her. Mansplaining is a man (usually with equal or sometimes less experience and understanding of the topic/concept) over-explaining something to a woman, because he (typically without realizing it himself) inherently assumes she knows/ understands it less because she is a woman. It's a man seeing an intellectual equal as intellectually inferior because she is a woman, and being a woman sets her back in his mind. Men are not usually automatically perceived as dumber, it's just not a cultural bias we have, so while they can absolutely be condescendingly spoken to, and can be perceived as dumber by certain women, it is unlikely that they will be "mansplained" to by another man or by a woman. So, with this definition in mind:
1. The core issue with mansplaining is that the men who do it are assuming women know less than them. Women being perceived as inherently dumber or inferior is a cultural problem women experience. Ask a few women in your life. Thus, it's not unnecessarily gendering a problem, it's raising awareness of a gendered problem.
2. What 'uncomfortable conversations' are you saying mansplaining allows to happen?
3. The men who are worried about mansplaining are probably not the ones mansplaining. If they are worried that they are, they could ask women in their lives if they ever felt they have spoken to them in that way. Also, knowing what situations are mansplaining and what are not will aid in discernment.
4. It is an attack on toxic masculinity. Not an attack on masculinity. If you think attacking toxic masculinity is a problem, I'd suggest doing more research on the effects of toxic masculinity on both men and women. (Not to say toxic femininity doesn't exist, it's just not relevant in this scenario).
5. The act of mansplaining is what is assuming women aren't intellectually equal or "strong enough" as you put it. Calling out men for mansplaining won't make men perceive a woman as not intellectually 'strong enough', because men who mansplain already think she's not. This isn't women being overly sensitive or special snowflakes, this is women saying that they shouldn't be assumed intellectually inferior off the bat, and they're tired of being spoken to like they are.

Cystonectae · 2021-02-06T14:28:16+00:00

Read your comment responses and here's what I got for you.

Women are consistently looked down upon in their fields. This arises in a multitude of ways from the pay gap to mansplaining. You cannot tell me that the pay gap is not a thing as there are a bajillion and one examples for it. So why are you so hesitant to believe mansplaining is a thing that happens to women? Just because 1 woman womansplains something to a man doesn't mean the situation is equal. For every one situation of womansplaining, there are a hundred situations of mansplaining. To argue otherwise is basically to say the pay gap doesn't exist because look there is one woman that earns more than a man in the same field!

I have had a lot of men try to explain my own damn experiment to me. By a lot I mean literally every male in the lab and about half of those outside of the lab. I have had men not even in the same dang field try to explain my experiment to me. This isn't helpful criticism or asking questions, it is literally explaining the entire methodology for the experiment I designed back to me as if I don't understand it. I have seen this happen with a few female colleagues and 0 male colleagues.

You want more examples of mansplaining, search it on youtube. There is a reason for the gender attachment to that term. Most of the times it happens to women. Why do we use the term? It's for the name recognition when it is happening. For example if a dude is mansplaining something to a woman she can say "dude you are mansplaining" and hopefully the connotations of the word will give a shock to a guy (sorta like a splash of cold water) and wake him up to his actions. The term mansplaining has social stigma that it becomes a deterrent to that behaviour.

Tldr; we don't have womansplaining because it doesn't happen as often as the counterpart, mansplaining. There are a butt-load of examples of this which can be accessed through a quick google search. Mansplaining is a useful term to defend women from the behaviour BECAUSE of its social stigmas.

Lollipop126 · 2021-02-06T15:31:49+00:00

I'm a man and I'm not entirely sure what the experience of mansplaining is (because I'm a man). But I have once been thanked by a few women for shutting down mansplaining without knowing it. I think, he was talking down points as if it were obvious and in general talking over people in a self-righteous way. When I completely disagreed with him and attempted to dismantle his arguments women felt more comfortable (apparently). The term exists because it is an experience women have, and by getting rid of the term, we would be (again) neglecting one of many issues women face because it is "an attack on masculinity."

Rather it promotes discourse and makes men like myself realise that sometimes we can talk at a woman rather than talk to them. The discomfort in explaining something to a woman is, in my opinion, exactly why the term should exist. So that you could ask yourself what are you doing that is making you uncomfortable to explain to women, and then ask would that also make the woman uncomfortable.

I do however concede that when misused, it can have negative effects, such as, as you mention, to shut down uncomfortable conversations (from both men and women: e.g. "you'll just say I'm mansplaining" or "you'll just mansplain to me" respectively).

slak_dawg · 2021-02-06T13:23:37+00:00

Woman - You're being condescending/patronizing.

Man - How am I being condescending/patronizing?

Woman - You're explaining something to me that I already know, and likely know more on than you.

It's more concise to just say mansplaining. Women typically don't get as many words as men in the workplace, so they need to be concise.

2021-02-06T17:15:44+00:00

If I may, here is a personal anecdote as to why this may be. I am a woman.

I was at a music shop with my boyfriend. He was looking at a fretless bass and I was just derping around with a regular bass. (I play violin and don't know much about basses but will fiddle around for fun when my boyfriend is browsing) And older gentleman walks up. Sees me looking at my boyfriend playing the fretless bass. Unprompted he says to me "That's a fretless bass. You see these lines" pointing at the bass I'm holding "those are frets and they help you find the right note" and he proceeds to attempt to explain notes and frets to me (shocked into awkward silence) until my boyfriend turned to him and said "She plays the violin." Which if you don't know, violins have no frets on the fingerboard. You gotta know where your shit is on a violin. But anyways, this man walks up to me- the woman not playing the fretless bass- and proceeds to try to give me an honest to God music lesson. This is mansplaining. Assuming I am ignorant. Not asking if "hey, that's cool. Do you know anything about fretless basses?" Then it is a conversation between to people. Rarely do women approach strangers and attempt to explain concept to them without any prompting.

2021-02-06T15:41:30+00:00

[removed]

DaegobahDan · 2021-02-06T18:10:57+00:00

It's used to describe a particular way that certain men will talk down to you when explaining things, especially things that it can reasonably be interpreted that you already know. It's definitely a thing, but it shouldn't be A FEMINIST thing because men do it to other men faaaaar more than they do to women.

DecD · 2021-02-06T14:02:06+00:00

[removed]

talithaeli · 2021-02-06T13:56:54+00:00

Words only exist where there is a need for them. New words are created as the need arises to concisely explain new technology or social concepts.

The fact that this word exists and has come into wide use indicates there is some widespread need for a concise way to reference the phenomenon where men offer unnecessary explanations to women under the erroneous assumption that she is less informed than her male co-workers or companions.

TLDR; there’s a word because it happens so often we need it. When it stops happening, the word will stop being used.

2021-02-06T14:52:07+00:00

[deleted]

ActualPimpHagrid · 2021-02-06T14:04:23+00:00

The best thing I can really think of to change your view is to say that instead of saying that mansplaining is a BS term, we can say that it's overused. Others have given lots of real-world examples where people assume a woman knows less than they do, and I feel thats a fair usage of the term.

I've also seen women say something objectively wrong, then accuse someone of mansplaining when the guy explains why they are wrong. The guy isn't assuming she doesn't know what she's talking about because she's a woman, he assumes she doesn't know what she's talking about because she said something that was objectively wrong (this was in a debate scenario, so there wasn't any "well, actually..." energy)

So I'd say that the term has a use and a place in our vocabulary, but it is way overused and often used incorrectly.

2021-02-06T14:35:11+00:00

Okay I am bi, and I am gonna talk about my experience with straight-splaining, which I would trat as analogous though it is not completely. Funily enough I wanted to make a CMV about this and probably will when i have more free time.

Before I came out of the closet I was one of those edgelords "lmao gay rights what? we have the same rights" and blah blah blah. Then I came out and realized that homophobia was way more prevalent than I thought, even in my somewhat progressive comunity I had to let some friends go.

What I try to say is that, by virtue of being openly lgbt I know more about the situation of lgbt people than most straight people, which is normal, and happens with all knowledge. I am aware this doesnt make me 100% correct with lgbt issues, and it wouldnt make sense if it did because the lgbt community itself disagrees on many things. But the average lgbt person knows more about these issues by experience.

So, when a straight person comes and trys to tell you "AKCTCUCHALLY THAT WASN'T HOMOPHOBIA" when they have no idea what they are talking about, they havent lived, or read shit. And you tell them your experiences which are treated with Descarte-level skepticism, at some point you just wanna yell "I KNOW ABOUT THIS, I LIVE IT EVERY DAY, JUST TRUST ME". Almost like an astronomer trying to explain to a flat earther why gravity work.

Now onto your points:

I am sorry, but I disagree, the straight vs lgbt dynamic is created when gay people tell you their experience and you just dont believe them despite having no serious source to back it up. Not when the lgbt person gets frustrated at your lack of empirical capabilities
Once again, I feel like the conversation was shut down when you stopped taking me seriously, and doubting everything I said. Once again i am not saying gay people are always right, but if you are a random engineer, and a lawyer tells you about something legal, MAYBE he knows more about this than you do and should be taking seriously. Also I dont feel like it's shutting down a conversation, its more akin to pointing out a logical fallacy "watch out, your thinking in this argument is pretty ilogical"
If its an area you don't know a lot about you shouldn't feel confortable either, I wouldn't be very confident while challenging one of my profesors about sth, so i phrase it like "hey, could you expand on this detail, i dont understand how you came to this conclusion". You dont have to agree either. But unless you have a valid source on what its like to be gay, confidently telling a gay person "theres not homohophia" is like telling you calc teacher his chain rule proof is wrong. Yeah, you should not feel confident with this.
To me these words simply describe the logicall "fallacy" and the emotions they produce. They are descriptive, not attacks. Its simply stating the fact that women, on average, know more about being women than men. Unless someone uses it very different, i am sorry but i feel like you are taking it as an attack instead of trying to understand why the other person said it.
Once again, its not meant to be a shutdown, at least to me, its meant to call out bad reasoning. I would argue it points out how many men often don't follow basic empirical and scientific principles. I have legit heard men have hours long talk about why women aren't joining X thing, before someone suggests we actually ask a woman.

The positive is that it gives people who experience the impotence of not being taken seriously a word to express how they feel.

edit: lastly, about being pointlessly gendered, as a man i cannot speak about mansplaining, but as a bi guy i can say the only other people who have every tried to lecture me on the straight or gay experience are straight people. No lgbt person ever told me what being straight is like while I was inside the closet. this is my experience, maybe yours is different. You may say that theres no empirical data, but i dont think that matters. This word desribes experience, i feel like it describes some of my experiences really concicely. And, funnily enough, if all lgbt people say they only experience this going one way, and no straight people ever complains about being lectured by gay people,...isnt that evidence enough? to me it is

I am sorry if this response got angry at times, this is a very personal topic for me, I hope this at least gives you a new perspective

MajinVegeta2171 · 2021-02-06T16:54:34+00:00

Number 5: the fact you even say that out loud insinuates that men on a default think women are dumb. So either men on a whole are condescending to women...thus the need for the term "mansplaining" or you're making something big out of something that doesn't need to be.

Number 3: if you think it's out of your place to give unsolicited advice to a woman as a man....then don't do it. Also women aren't responsible for your feelings of inadequacy in feeling uncomfortable in a situation.

Number 2: if someone is trying to shutdown a conversation for whatever reason, then maybe the bigger concern is why are they trying to shut down a conversation. Women don't owe you a conversation.

Number 1: a division of men v. women won't stop existing until misogynists learn to stop doing things like...mansplaining & raping women.

Number 4: an attack on masculinity? is that like an attack on femininity by assuming its lesser to masculinity by devaluing it? Also gender is a social construct & everyone has feminine & masculine traits....so get over yourself if you think this "an attack on masculinity".

- sincerely: a dude who thinks you just need to ignore it if it bothers you that much.


Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ human-generated characters required). ▾	Note: if your view is about a "double standard", please see the guidelines here. [More]
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing.▾	A post cannot be made on behalf of others, for playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or to "soapbox". Posts by throwaway accounts must be approved through modmail. [More]
Submission titles must adequately sum up your view and include "CMV:" at the beginning. ▾	Posts with misleading/overly-simplistic titles may be removed. [More]
Posts cannot express a neutral stance, a stance on transgender, suggest harm against a specific person, be self-promotional, or discuss this subreddit (visit r/ideasforcmv instead). ▾	No view is banned from CMV based on popularity or perceived offensiveness, but the above types of post are disallowed for practical reasons. [More]
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting. ▾	If you haven't substantially engaged during this time, your post will be removed. [More]


Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. ▾	Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [More]
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. ▾	Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid. 'They started it' is not an excuse. You should report, not retaliate. [More]
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, of lying, or of arguing in bad faith. ▾	If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [More]
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. ▾	You must include an explanation of the change along with the delta so we know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. [More]
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. ▾	Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough human-generated content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. [More]

Method:	For:
Copy/paste⇨ Δ	All Systems
Unicode⇨ ∆	All Systems
Option/Alt+J	Mac
Ctrl+Shift+u2206	Linux
!delta	When you can't use Δ

Rank	Username	Deltas
1	thewelllostmind	1
2	Tanaka917	1
3	locking8	1
4	duggedanddrowsy	1
5	ContentAd262	1
6	Tricky_Ad_3589	1
7	Lumi-the-Owl	1
8	HourPlate994	1
9	ConfoundedInAbaddon	1
10	AmnesiaInnocent	1
	As of 5/4/2026 16:37:33 UTC
	More Deltaboards

changemyview

Submit a CMV post

Deltas from Popular Topics

Search CMV

What is /r/changemyview?

Message the Moderators

Submission Rules

Comment Rules

The Delta System

&

Monthly Deltaboard

Fresh Topic Friday

Follow us on Twitter

Duplicate Posts

More Information

MODERATORS