• Beesbeesbees@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    So I’ve noticed this post isn’t going over very well. I’d like to add a female perspective.

    “Mansplain” isn’t meant to say you info dump or over explain a thing. It means that you assume you know more simply based on sex. It’s a type of misogyny that’s more typically overt in boomer culture, but it’s got a following in the whole Tate movement. I have rarely noticed it outside of that generation in the wild.

    Now…Guys do infodump, which leads to this confusion, because a lot of people dislike that behavior too. Statistically women do speak less in mixed groups. Put it all together and it’s easy for people to over generalize a very specific behavior. It does happen, but compared to previous generations it’s not as common. It definitely occurs to women who work in non-traditional fields and take on non-traditional roles and I suspect that the same is true for men.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      It means that you assume you know more simply based on sex.

      Isn’t that misandry to assume the man is a sexist because he’s shitty at explaining things or communicating generally you know like a stereotypical man. We can’t be both incredibly myopic and excessively insightful of nuance.

      • Beesbeesbees@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        Let me be more clear:

        An operational definition of “mansplaining”: If a man assumes he knows more about than a woman explicitly because he is a man and she is a woman. He explains to her x,y,z from this perspective.

        Example: A man always talks over female peers, and explains answers during open ended discussions, because he believes he is better and more rational at open-ended discussions than his female counterparts regardless of any evidence of this, or even in spite of it.

        Non-Example: A man informs a woman or others about a topic he is more interested or informed in, at a (possibly annoying) length.

        It isn’t misandry to call out this bad behavior. Yes it cuts both ways, but we are talking about this term specifically.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 days ago

          That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you’re simply saying it’s based on sex or race.

          How is this substantially different then screeching “dei” at every minority that mildly inconveniences you?

          • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 days ago

            It wasn’t an explanation about how to assess whether someone is mansplaining or not – it was a definition of what mansplaining is.

              • null@lemmy.nullspace.lol
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                21 days ago

                Yeah and I’m asking them to use their definition in comparison

                To be clear, no you weren’t. Hence the confusion.

                But since you’ve clarified: obviously using any term to unfairly accuse someone of being or doing something is a bad thing. Is that a real question?

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  That’s exactly what I was doing hence the twice repeated question, you can claim a lot of things but that isn’t one that has legs.

                  Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.

                  My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    My wife has accused me of mansplaining when I really was just sharing the information I had in my head about “the thing” because I was proud of myself about that.

    There’s also the “You may already know all this, but it’s worth saying out loud anyway.”

    I’m not saying mansplaining isn’t a thing - it certainly is - but there are other innocent “info dump” kinds of things that can look like mansplaining but weren’t intended to be. I try to be very clear about why I am info dumping when I do, but I’m not always able to catch myself in time.

    #TouchOfTheTism

    • FerretyFever0@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      Exactly, when I tell my therapist about the funny things I learned about psychology, it’s just me saying stuff that I know now, how I think it’s cool, and asking for further information. I’m well aware that he already knows far more on the topic. If you’re explaining it with a tone of “you fucking idiot woman, I’m educating you”, then that’s mansplaining. Another important possibility, is just phrasing a question as a statement for clarification. Think of how a waiter will repeat your order back to you at a restaraunt. I do the same thing when I learn about a new concept. I repeat back what I think I understood about something to make sure I got it right. Tone is very important. If I don’t sound like I’m trying to be a dick to you, then I’m probably not.