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

Am I the only woman that is surrounded by mansplaining men? I do know a few men that show the caution and sensitivity to have a truly two-way exchange of a conversation with women, but they are rare as hen's teeth. I even have to periodically haul my DH up over it even though he understands.

Or my grandfather explaining to a room full of active women, in front of his sporty wife, that women can't play sports like football because it will make us infertile

Would mansplaining be like all the times my father patiently explained that things like pmt and menstrual cramps were sociotal constructs caused by the fact that modern western women don't have enough babies.

I think that's it really Eldritch.

I can't imagine my FIL 'helpfully' explaining to my DH about different types of paint. He did it to me because I'm a woman - the fact that I am a woman who has painted more walls than FIL has had hot dinners, counted for nothing.

I agree with Mooncup.

And the key is, isn't it, that this behaviour isn't derived from a personality trait but attitudes acquired because of male privilege and cultural attitudes. So a man who is naturally quite diffident in a group of other men, would become overbearing and 'mansplain' to women because he was conditioned/indoctrinated/whatever to perform that role.

Does that make any sense?

Gosh, there are some very snide people on this thread. Certainly, Kim, there are very many women who are socially annoying too. But the particular sort of overbearing and patronising behaviour Kritiq describes is, in my experience, almost invariably the preserve of men (not all men by any means, but quite a few men) and it's that that is under discussion here.

'Ah, Enlightenment dawns......'

Indeed .

Whatmeworry

Looks to me like a man could be guilty of both "mansplaining" and being patronising.

I would have thought that you, of all people, would be more willing to listening to what women are saying to you; instead of assuming you know everything there is possibly to be about being a woman

Ah, Enlightenment dawns......

"Mansplaining" is a word to be used only by The Right Sort Of Feminists to denigrate Other Feminists and The Rest who disagree with The Truth.

You are not debating, or arguing, or disagreeing with The Truth - no, you are Mansplaining.

Which of course these Proper Feminists cannot do, so ergo can never be guilty of the heinous sin of Mansplaining, no matter how pompous, pious or patronising they are.

Yes, trans=opposite sides, cis=on the same side.

I don't think we should derail this thread into a big discussion about trans; I wanted to answer your question about cis as I thought it could be done without going off into a big tangent.

TunipTheVegemal Wed 29-Aug-12 12:50:32
The problem many feminists have with 'cis' is that it doesn't simply mean 'not trans'. It comes from the Latin prefix 'cis-' meaning 'on the same side', the idea being that your physical sex and internal gender identity are 'on the same side'. Many feminists believe that there's no such thing as a natural gender identity - gender is a hierarchy imposed upon us by the patriarchy. So to accept the term 'cis' makes a nonsense of my beliefs about gender.

My knowledge of cis and trans originally is from chemistry at or before first degree level. So surely trans means your physical sex and internal gender identity are 'on the other side'?

Many feminists believe that there's no such thing as a natural gender identity - gender is a hierarchy imposed upon us by the patriarchy. So to accept the term 'cis' makes a nonsense of my beliefs about gender.

Interesting; is it your view that transexualism is a patriarchal construct, aimed at the oppression of women? What's your take on gender re-assignment surgery?

One More Chap, as an aside, SCUM were, back in the day, the Scottish Council of Unmarried Mothers. The name being chosen to be deliberately ironic.

'I don't really want to have a go at you, I just felt your 'women can't mansplain therefore women can't whitesplain, straightsplain, poshsplain, etc' was being deliberately obtuse - all for a joke, which is pretty rude IMO.'

I didn't say that.

Being labelled by others with a word that erases your personal lived experience is offensive.

So from my 'privileged' position, I understand that.
Note, I didn't choose that word.

The problem many feminists have with 'cis' is that it doesn't simply mean 'not trans'. It comes from the Latin prefix 'cis-' meaning 'on the same side', the idea being that your physical sex and internal gender identity are 'on the same side'. Many feminists believe that there's no such thing as a natural gender identity - gender is a hierarchy imposed upon us by the patriarchy. So to accept the term 'cis' makes a nonsense of my beliefs about gender.

"I am a woman, with rights. We are at the same privilege level, although I'm broke (unless you're more broke, which is unlikely, cos I'm really broke), so you probably have more privilege. Which then, by your reckoning, means you should check your privilege and apologise for having a go at me."

I don't know how broke we are in relation to each other - how often do you see the luxury of £0 as your bottom line? But thats by the by and not what its about.

I don't really want to have a go at you, I just felt your 'women can't mansplain therefore women can't whitesplain, straightsplain, poshsplain, etc' was being deliberately obtuse - all for a joke, which is pretty rude IMO.

'Being labelled by others with a word that erases your personal lived experience is offensive.'

So very, very true. And applicable to so many people and situations.