this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
1601 points (94.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
8690 readers
2571 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Right, so a man talking to a woman in the same field shouldn't explain what is basic in their field. That is mansplaining. Mansplaining is contextual.
It is used much more freely than that. I agree that it's a problem when it actually happens, but I'd argue the accurate use of the term is not the typical one.
I agree that it's not always used accurately. I read your other responses and I honestly used to have the same beliefs as you, but I really tried to observe and listen openly the past few years and it shifted my perspective.
Mansplaining is a real problem. If you try to observe social interactions in detail, you'll notice it more and more often, you'll even catch yourself doing it. A lot of men really talk very differently to women than other men.
When so many women come out and talk about this issue, they're not all wrong. I find it kind of ironic that a lot of times, they're dismissed because men feel the urge to explain and tell them they're over-reacting.
Sidenote as a response to one of your other replies: I believe that the way the message is perceived is more important than the intent of the message. My intent with this reply is to help you try to think and observe this issue more openly. If it is perceived as attacking your beliefs and putting you on the defensive, then it obviously wasn't the right message to get through to you. I don't mean to be condescending, but I'm sure these same words may be condescending to some people. I'm just not the right person to get through to those people on this issue.
I get that, I do not disagree. My main complaints are:
1 With the term itself, because a la my "womancomplaining" analogy, it shifts the focus from "this man was being a sexist, condescending asshole" to "being a sexist condescending asshole is just a thing men do"
2 With the overuse which is used to broadly dismiss legitimate attempts at communication. It's definitely a problem when random guys try to explain a woman's specialty to her, not so much when an man with expertise tries to correct a woman who's definitely wrong. The problem isn't that this behavior is being called out when it happens, I'm totally fine with that (though the term itself is still sexist). The problem is that it's being used to defect legitimate communication.
I appreciate that, but I've done that. I understand that it's important to be empathetic, I try to myself whenever possible. But communication breaks down when you pander to everyone for the sake of the most sensitive perceiver. No one can control how someone else feels, and you can't know who is going to feel what way. If everyone treated each other in the gentlest way possible no one could effectively communicate.
Conflict is necessary for improvement. You cannot progress without some disagreement with the current state. If someone is wrong, and no one wants to hurt their feelings by correcting them, they will continue being wrong. In another message, I used the example of a person about to lift weights with a terrible form that was sure to cause them avoidable injury. An expert onlooker holding their tongue for fear of seeming condescending spares the lifter the feeling of being talked down to, but replaces that with serious self-injury.
This is a perfect illustration. You've been nothing but patient and gentle, you haven't said anything condescending, but you're still worried that I might think it is, even after I've shown clear objection to that kind of hypersensitivity. It's infantilizing in its own way to treat everyone as if they can't handle the slightest disagreement without being offended. The whole premise of moderating your communication to avoid offending the most sensitive perceiver grinds effective communication among equals to a halt.
I can understand your first point, but being sexist condescending assholes seems to be more of a thing men do, and obviously this was experienced by enough women for someone to coin the term and have it become an immediately relatable experience. You could definitely rephrase it to be something less sexist like "condes-plaining" (work in progress), but it loses the inherent nature of pointing out that it is something women are experiencing from men. I also agree with you that overuse of the term would be bad. I think I disagree that the term is being overused. Every term is used incorrectly in places. I know this is anecdotal, but I haven't seen or experienced the term being used inaccurately all that often.
For the second half of our discussion, I think I should clarify that I was talking from a one-on-one conversational perspective, not a lecture hall, group discussion, or a friend group. I think those environments are very different and while perception also matters there, it would be a different kind of discussion. A one-one conversation like a gym trainer calling out someone with bad form could go like: "You know, that's terrible form, here's how you do it the right way" versus "Hey, excuse me, I noticed your form isn't safe and could lead to injury. Would you like some help?" I think both ways get the point across, one of them is a lot nicer than the other.
I believe your communication should pander to the person you're addressing, if you are trying to have a constructive conversation. You can disagree with someone and present it in about a million different ways - some of them might be offensive to that person, others might be well-received. The reason I mentioned that my words may be condescending to some people was not out of worry or fear of offending you, but as a point that different people expect communication in different ways.
I think you're doing the same thing subconsciously, you're saying things in a concise and respectful way such that you believe will be perceived well by me. You could say the same thing in ways I'd find incredibly rude, and we would not be having a constructive discussion. Now if someone finds what you're saying offensive when you're not trying to be offensive, then you can either rephrase yourself or accept that you won't be able to effectively communicate with that person one-on-one.
Right, like being a relf-righteous martyr seems to be more of a thing women do, which is experienced by a large number of men. But that doesn't make it right to characterize all women as doing it, or suggest that it's unique to women, which the term "womencomplaining" implicitly does.
Women "mansplain", men "womancomplain". Only an obnoxious minority of men "mansplain", only an obnoxious minority of women "womancomplain". Those people are obnoxious. Focusing on their gender gets dangerous close to "13%" territory.
I like that way more, actually. That might be a legitimate replacement which highlights the problem without being sexist.
Anecdotally, I have.
Agreed. But even the second is considered condescending by some.
Uh, that is actually kinda condescending. I was fully conscious when I decided on my tone.
And that's the issue. Once person X has decided person Y is offensive, all appeals and rephrasings will be discarded as additional offenses. Sure, that's no big loss in any individual case, but the more popular that trend becomes, the more people cut off from effective communication.
Basic to who, the man or the woman? How does one know what another deems basic? What appears basic to you is not likely to be so for me, and the converse of this is also likely true.
Better said that mansplaining is a post-hoc label applied to an event with a presumption of intent on the speaking party made. One can liken it to "are you looking at me pal?", but more socially acceptable.
I think every field has things that are pretty universally understood to be basic. If you and I are in computer science and I'm explaining how a keyboard works to you unsolicited, that's pretty basic stuff and I would be mansplaining.
I've had arguments with colleagues over things I assumed were basic and blindingly obvious.
Never assume someone knows something.