For all those who have wondered why mansplaining is even a thing

If you want to believe "splaining" is something other than what it is, no one can stop you. If you want to believe the moon is made of green cheese, equally, no one can stop you

KRITIQ both your posts are classic bits of "mansplaining", except they were by a woman, which illustrates exactly what we are saying - its not just a man thing, it's a patronising person thing.

Fwiw I hate the term "splaining" as well, whatever happened to good old fashioned English. The old word was Patronising, which tells you all you need to knw about how it works.

Oh, I had this open from last night and didn't get Kritiq's post.

I imagined it to include other types of "explaining", and not just those to do with privilege.

A subject comes up in conversation and the one who considers themselves the alpha male will decide to educate the other person/people about that subject, explaining what is going on, with no time taken to consider if anyone else might be better qualified.

The subject could be fighter planes in WWII, or the best way to make a souffle rise. It doesn't have to be directly prejudice or oppression-related. It's the assumption that, no matter how unqualified you are to talk about something, your innate amazingness* means that your opinion is worth listening to more than anyone else's. (with no consideration that someone else might have studied military history, or be a Michelin-starred chef)

* your "amazingness could be that you consider yourself to be cleverer, or better educated, or to have better instincts or intuition, or to have a better memory, or to just be so much better at thinking that your thoughts are of high value to all those around you

I agree that it is a thing that some people do, but I hate the word.

I do think that men do it to other men, it's a kind of "alpha male" thing (alphasplaining?).

Whatmeworry, perhaps you found my post patronising, but my intention was primarily to explain the concept of "splaining," as something distinct from run of the mill patronising. My explanation doesn't fit the concept as the only "privilege" I was asserting was my understanding of the concept, which has nothing to do with my sex, race, class or any other factor.

If you want to believe "splaining" is something other than what it is, no one can stop you. If you want to believe the moon is made of green cheese, equally, no one can stop you.

If you don't believe that there are some folks who for factors beyond their control like their ethnicity, socio-economic backgrounds, sex, etc. experience relative advantage while others experience relative disadvantage, depending on how society values people "like them," then you're likely to completely reject the idea that "splaining" ever happens. Fine.

KRITIQ, with respect, you've extended "mansplaining" into sex-splaining, race-splaining, para-splaining, class-splaining, and been a bit mansplainist by lecturing us that we are all clearly wrong, a bit dim, and don't get it.

BTW I don't think we've missed the point, I think we are saying that "Mansplaining" is missing it.

I think folks are missing the point of what "mansplaining" means. There are equivalents related to racial privilege, straight privilege, class privilege, cis privilege, etc. as well. Basically it's where someone from a more privileged group undermines the experience or comments from someone in a less privileged group - basically "teaching granny to suck eggs." And yes, it's real. See it all the time on here, for example.

It's where a woman talks about the barriers she's had in her career due to gender discrimination and a man tries "splain" why her experience is bullshit - anything from, "you probably didn't have the aptitude of the men," to "most women don't want to put in the time and effort to get the promotion," or similar.

It's where a person of colour talks about being harassed by the police and a white person chimes in about the time a cop was a bit rude to him when he was caught speeding, or that it's probably just a coincidence and nothing do with racism, etc.

It's when a disabled person describes the negative impact of service cuts on them and how it's going to be impossible for them to keep their job and a non-disabled person "helpfully" suggests a whole list of different jobs they could probably do instead.

It's when a working class person describes how hard it is to make ends meet with their hours cut at work and everything costing more and a more privileged class person starts talking about how awful they had it when they were broke for a while at uni and had to eat beans on toast for a week.

And yes, someone of the same group can "splain" to others, particularly where they've "played the game" and think they are in a more advantageous position than the person they are talking to. Perhaps it helps them feel better about themselves if they can talk down to someone or maybe it's that they want to distance themselves as much as possible from the "undesirable identity" that they no longer want to occupy. Wevs.

Either you get the concept or you don't. Folks who like to splain generally don't get it, or make a big deal out of insisting that they don't get it (when they choose not to.) Methinks there could be quite a few such folk round these parts at the moment, sadly.

Hate mansplain. Just hate it.

This is mainly because whilst I absolutely get that it's somehow 'less bad' for a less privileged group to use this type of language against a more privileged group, I often wince at the way used and I hate to say this, but particularly in rad fem discourse

Language is often imprecise and I see people (including women) being shot down for 'mansplaining' when to me it appears more likely that they either (a) have missed something, so could do with some constructive criticism of their argument or (b) just haven't articulated themselves as well as they would prefer.

Also to be frank, whilst it isn't 'all about the menz', I personally find the term a bit sexist and would feel a bit hypocritical calling people on humour etc. that they use and then going on to use this term in general discourse.

Rofl, kim. I'm a retired raf officer.

lol,bossplaining how funny

My pet hate is "Bossplaining" complete with corporate buzzwords and homilies.

I think its the need to bolster self importance that does it, I always see a link to Short Man Syndrome fwiw.

I don't think it's gender some folk have a patronizing manner
boorish male is as annoying as someone who says attempts to speak for women as if homogenous group

The nn is 'unhinged'. The autocorrect is working on the nn title.!!

No I witnessed it all, or at least most of it. IT was a dramatic implosion and a lot of the rads are still here. But I guess it's chip paper now.

Unhombre, you just didn't see the threads then.

Btw, you're name autocorrects to unhinged on my phone ;)

radsplaining - classic!
fwiw I don't think any rads were 'chased off' any boards.

My Dh was appointed head of the diversity committee at work. The discussion we had about how to appeal to working women was "interesting" to the degree that I thought I would divorce him.

*kim147 Tue 28-Aug-12 20:08:29
My dad mansplains. A lot. He's a retired [RAF] officer.

Well, officers are kind of used to explaining things clearly in a way which brooks no misunderstanding or resistance?

I have been sufficiently acculturated to find the author's 'several actually' response, almost as boorish as Mr Important. I don't think it's because she's a woman, although I am examining that critically.

I would, however, have laughed like a drain myself as I rolled home. Some folk are just self important wankers.

I absolutely understand the term 'mansplaining', and it does typify a certain attitude, but am uncomfortable with it for the 'womandriving' reasons cited. That doesn't mean it isn't bang on, in context, just as 'womandriving' would be. (in the interests of full disclosure, I'm a crap driver. It's nowt to do with being a woman, though.)

Am I allowed a at radsplaining?

I'd like to point out that while I may indeed know it all, I am not at all boring.

I've met plenty of women who do this. I used to do this myself. I probably still do when drunk a bit tipsy, as I have often been accused of being a boring know-it-all.

The people who do this the most seem to be middle aged and pre-teens.

Just my personal observations.

But these men work with other men as well as women, so they can either reserve their boorish tactics for women only, or inflict their bad manners on everyone is range. For those who have observed it first hand, I'd like to know which it is.

For example, how does a table full of male Oxbridge dons conduct their interactions? Or Tunip's male friend at dinner? That doesn't sound like a work environment to me.

Arf Mooncup.

When they turn 40.

Ah yes Tunip - I have often wondered when young, reasonably civilised men turn into tedious middle-aged men, and it sounds like you've been granted a front seat on the transformation process. Perhaps one could film the changes over the years and then show it speeded up, a la David Attenborough and flowers opening.

It seems a rather sexist term to me. Yes, the men in the article were very patronising and sexist, but to extend that to all men, or a 'typical man', by giving it the name 'mansplaining' seems pretty sexist in itself. I note the author doesn't actually use that term in the article.

If there existed the term 'womandriving' which meant driving without sufficient care or spacial awareness, I think we would all object to that, as it implies all women, or the typical woman, are poor drivers. I can't see a difference between that and 'mansplaining'. I don't think it's something most men do at all, my dh doesn't, nor does my father, nor any of the men I work with.

If a man explains something in a patronising way because his listener is a woman, by all means challenge him on it as we should when presented with sexism, but lets not let that one example make us view all men in the same way.