What are your views of “mansplaining” a thing or not?

[Krav Maga]

My view is “mansplaining” isn’t a thing as it’s from a misandrist mindset. Do you hear any man say to stop “womansplaining”? Nope because it’s not a thing except to show you don’t value the opposite sex explaining their different views on average it’s used only when a woman disagrees with a man’s opinion.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Pommer]

My thought is “why is kitchen sink stuff in E&M?”

 

[RDKirk]

The original concept was a man explaining something to a woman that the woman was clearly in a position to already know...particularly when the man was not.

It has been broadened and flattened down to mean any time a man has anything to say on any subject at any time.

Kind of like what happened with "racism," "cultural appropriation," and "white privilege."

They all still exist in their specific meanings, but they've been applied to so many things that they are not that the original understanding of the concepts has been lost.

 

[dwb001]

Man splaining if a man does it
Woman splaining if a woman does it.
But if you are divorced it is explaining.

 

[jacks]

Until this post I had never heard the term.
What do I think? Now I have something new to feel aggrieved about.

 

[HTacianas]

My view is “mansplaining” isn’t a thing as it’s from a misandrist mindset. Do you hear any man say to stop “womansplaining”? Nope because it’s not a thing except to show you don’t value the opposite sex explaining their different views on average it’s used only when a woman disagrees with a man’s opinion.

What are your thoughts?

Is that like when you're driving down the road and see a woman with a flat tire reading the owners manual to her car and you're too afraid to stop and help or did you mean something else?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

My view is “mansplaining” isn’t a thing as it’s from a misandrist mindset. Do you hear any man say to stop “womansplaining”? Nope because it’s not a thing except to show you don’t value the opposite sex explaining their different views on average it’s used only when a woman disagrees with a man’s opinion.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that mansplaining is annoying but it, and those to do it, are generally easy to discount and ignore.

And while I have heard the term “womansplaining,” generally when women do it, we use less vanilla, more unflattering terms to describe it/them. Ones I can’t use on this forum.

 

[FireDragon76]

The original concept was a man explaining something to a woman that the woman was clearly in a position to already know...particularly when the man was not.

It has been broadened and flattened down to mean any time a man has anything to say on any subject at any time.

Kind of like what happened with "racism," "cultural appropriation," and "white privilege."

They all still exist in their specific meanings, but they've been applied to so many things that they are not that the original understanding of the concepts has been lost.

The meaning of mansplaining really hasn't broadened.

Mansplaining is men negating a woman's voice through the use of their own, on the assumption that a woman's perspective is less valid.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

The meaning of mansplaining really hasn't broadened.

Neither has “racism,” “white privilege,” or “cultural appropriation,” for that matter.

 

[dwb001]

Neither has “racism,” “white privilege,” or “cultural appropriation,” for that matter.

With the exception of racism these are all modern inventions. And the racism term has modified greatly over the years.

Racism used to be about judging someone based on race. Now it is about race+power.

 

[RDKirk]

The meaning of mansplaining really hasn't broadened.

Mansplaining is men negating a woman's voice through the use of their own, on the assumption that a woman's perspective is less valid.

I said in my post that "mansplaining" as well as several other terms, still exist in their original meanings.

In common incidence, however, it frequently gets applied in a discussion whenever a man states an opinion on anything, anywhere, any time. At some point some woman is likely to call that comment "mansplaining" to shut him up.

And, for that matter, negating someone else's opinion through the use of one's own opinion is what debate is all about. So, if that's your definition, that seems to make mansplaining a matter of "opinion+gender" like the modern definition of racism is "race+power."

 

[RDKirk]

With the exception of racism these are all modern inventions. And the racism term has modified greatly over the years.

Racism used to be about judging someone based on race. Now it is about race+power.

Nothing particularly modern about cultural appropriation or white privilege in America.

It's only been recently, apparently, that you've heard of them.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

With the exception of racism these are all modern inventions. And the racism term has modified greatly over the years.

Racism used to be about judging someone based on race. Now it is about race+power.

No, they really aren’t. The words might be new-ish, but the concept has been around since people have and have been called various things. And their meanings have been inflexible.

The only time I’ve seen people claim they have broadened their meanings is when the definitions overlap a little too close to their beliefs or behaviors, then instead of self-examining to see if they’re the problem, they simply say the definition has expanded because of reactionaries and liberals.

Though I’ll point out racisms meaning was never as watered down and simple as “judging based on race.”

 

[dwb001]

Nothing particularly modern about cultural appropriation or white privilege in America.

It's only been recently, apparently, that you've heard of it.

AMERICA IS A MODERN INVENTION.

So before you say the phrase is old... please show then proof that these ideas date back futher than a few years.

Please show your work.

 

[dwb001]

No, they really aren’t. The words might be new-ish, but the concept has been around since people have and have been called various things. And their meanings have been inflexible.

Nope. You contradict yourself like you were in 1984.

The only time I’ve seen people claim they have broadened their meanings is when the definitions overlap a little too close to their beliefs or behaviors, then instead of self-examining to see if they’re the problem, they simply say the definition has expanded because of reactionaries and liberals.

Though I’ll point out racisms meaning was never as watered down and simple as “judging based on race.”

You changed the wording of my argument. You are being untruthful. I said expanded and you said watered down. Those are not the same.

You are intentionally lying to people in an attempt to make your point.

Show your work or keep silent.

 

[RDKirk]

AMERICA IS A MODERN INVENTION.

So before you say the phrase is old... please show then proof that these ideas date back futher than a few years.

Please show your work.

White privilege has existed in concept since the 1700s, when Britain began using it in reference to the Irish.

It's the concept put into American law by the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):

"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they [Negros] have no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

W.E.B. DuBois coined the specific term of "white privilege" for this idea in his writings in the 1930s as Jim Crow was reaching its peak. The basic concept is that in any matter of question between a white man and a black man, the white man will be presumed correct.

​

 

[RDKirk]

AMERICA IS A MODERN INVENTION.

So before you say the phrase is old... please show then proof that these ideas date back futher than a few years.

Please show your work.

I will use your own accusation that you hurled against @Tropical Wilds :

You changed the wording of my argument. You are being untruthful. I said 'not modern' and you said 'old.' Those are not the same.

You are intentionally lying to people in an attempt to make your point.

You committed the same offense that you accused of @Tropical Wilds

 

[dwb001]

White privilege has existed in concept since the 1700s, when Britain began using it in reference to the Irish.

It's the concept put into American law by the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):



W.E.B. DuBois coined the specific term of "white privilege" for this idea in his writings in the 1930s as Jim Crow was reaching its peak. The basic concept is that in any matter of question between a white man and a black man, the white man will be presumed correct.

​

Like I said... a very modern idea. Thanks for backing me up.

 

[dwb001]

I will use your own accusation that you hurled against @Tropical Wilds :

You changed the wording of my argument. You are being untruthful. I said 'not modern' and you said 'old.' Those are not the same.

You are intentionally lying to people in an attempt to make your point.

You committed the same offense that you accused of @Tropical Wilds

When was that? Show your work.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Nope. You contradict yourself like you were in 1984.

The year or book? Because if you mean the year would make no sense and if you mean the book, you clearly don’t understand what that book is about. There is a rather large irony in claiming that a core word has recently been redefined, but then accusing somebody who says it hasn’t of acting like they’re in 1984.

You changed the wording of my argument. You are being untruthful. I said expanded and you said watered down. Those are not the same.

You are intentionally lying to people in an attempt to make your point.

Show your work or keep silent.

Ah. You’re one of those. “Agree or be quiet.” You have an opinion, your opinion is fact, and anybody who doesn’t accept that should shut up. Not at all surprised to find the self-examination that comes with words like “privilege” and “racism” is beyond your abilities with an attitude like that.

Well, I said that the only people who claim that the definition has expanded are those who don’t want to examine how their behavior overlaps with what is considered privilege or racism, but would rather accuse others of moving the goalpost making others the problem and thus being able to avoid accountability.

You know, like telling people to “show their work or keep silent.”

Then I said your watered down definition of racism was never just “judging based on race.” Thus proving that the issue isn’t that the definition expanded, but that you have a poor understanding of it and what it means and when you find it isn’t so basic, you think things have changed when in reality you’ve simply been educated with a fact most of us already knew.

Since it was your initial (baseless) claim was that the words are modern and the definitions have expanded over the years, I could have done the juvenile “show your work” baloney you’re fond of… But since I *clearly* know more about the topic than you, have a better understanding of social history than you, and me asking you to prove something that I know to be unprovable (because you made it up) is a waste of time, I simply cut to the chase to tell you that you’re wrong.