Mansplanied

[Mimmi78]

I have been told by my boss to apologise for saying to an external colleague, “thanks for mansplaining to me”

Yesterday was a busy day, lots on, I work in busy financial services role, interact with lots of external stakeholders at other company. The interaction was,
me - hi can I have this thing
him - no because of this, then, tacked on end a full explanation of how thing works.
for context 27 years in my industry, know how thing works. Explanation not required. I should just have said it in my head but my skirt pocket was fresh outta Fs to give.

Boss sympathetic but just wants it to go away, demands written apology, let’s get to it ladies, help me write the best apology for this one.

Unprofessional yes. Sexist? Probably in the HR handbook it is, but in reality no it is not sexist to refer to gender-specific behaviour in gender-specific language.

Sexist speech is using gender-specific language for things that are not gender specific (eg "hysteria"), using cross gender language to insult or belittle (eg "throw like a girl"), or calling one sex out for behaviour that is not a problem in the other sex (eg "controlling" vs "decisive"), none of which apply here.

“Many”? Not in my experience.

Actually I think your boss is right. When that word gets used, it adds a much more malicious angle to what happened. It assumes his behaviour was driven by misogyny, and there’s no real evidence for that here. He could just as easily have been a bit of a bore, patronising, or socially unaware.

Using that label turns it into something bigger and more loaded than it needs to be. It’s assigning motive rather than just describing behaviour, and that’s where it becomes unhelpful and even hateful, because you're making a nasty accusation with zero evidence.

It’s similar to any situation where someone attributes negative intent without clear evidence. That tends to escalate things and make resolution harder, rather than actually addressing the behaviour itself.

Hi [Name],
I’ve been asked to follow up on my comment yesterday and to apologise for how it came across. Referring to your explanation as “mansplaining” wasn’t appropriate for a professional setting, and I regret the phrasing.
Yesterday was a particularly full-on day on my side, and I was focused on moving things forward quickly. In doing so, I responded more sharply than I should have. That’s on me.
By way of context, I’m very familiar with this process, so I tend to default to the shortest path to resolution. I recognise, though, that this can come across as dismissive of input that’s offered in good faith, which wasn’t my intention.
I value a straightforward and efficient working dynamic, and I’m keen to keep our interactions constructive and focused going forward.
Best regards,

The whole point about this sort of sexism is that it isn't deliberate or malicious. It's the unconscious assumption that a woman isn't going to be of equal or greater expertise. Same type of dynamic that means women get interrupted and challenged more frequently than men. No one is doing it deliberately to put women down, but nevertheless the effect on women is real.

'I apologise for pointing out that you were mansplaining. I eagerly await your written apology for mansplaining.'

The person was being sexist and unprofessional in the way he spoke to OP. If he bridled at being told off for mansplaining, maybe he'll think twice next time he decides to patronise a woman.

The term mansplaining is in itself sexist.
Otherwise the term would be that he was being patronising.

And as the OP has also said, she will not use use sexist and unprofessional terms in the future, So job done.

I don't think you understand sexism.

Mansplaining is patronising, yes, but a specific subset of patronising behaviour which is a result of the social dynamic that assumes in a situation where there is a man and a woman, the man leads and the woman follows.

"Mansplaining" therefore describes a gendered behaviour, so gendered terms are appropriate. The act itself is sexist. Correctly observing this is not.

However, obscuring the sexist element by calling it "patronising" is sexist.

No you're assuming (subconscious) intent where there is no evidence of it existing. Do you have any proof that the same men who 'mansplain' to women, don't do it to other men?

The way I see it, it's a mix of social ineptitude and patronisation that certain people have, but it's in no way targeted at one specific gender.

'Thank you but I don't really need someone to explain the job I've been doing for 20 years', is a blunt but neutral reply. Whereas 'I don't need you to mansplain', is an implicit accusation that the interlocutor is a misogynist.

This isn't a court of law.

Do I know for certain what was in the subconscious of this particular man in the particular time he patronised the OP? No. Do you know that he wasn't exhibiting unconscious sexism? Also no.

But I do know, from my own experience and from talking to other women, that many women have the experience of men patronisingly over explaining to them and also see that the same men don't do that to their male colleagues.

So, respectfully, as this isn't a court of law, I'm going with Occam's razor.

I’d mansplain an apology.

And I know from from my own experience and from talking to other women
that both men and women can explain things patronisingly that we already know. So I guess there’s mansplain and womansplain.

Thankfully - it is very infrequent for me

Put of interest… did you experience “school gate cliques” @OooPourUsACupLove . Another mumsnet phenomenon that seems to have passed me by! Thankfully!

Bravo. This wins

a gendered response would be something that only one gender does. Even the woman that coins the phrase "mansplaining" says that women do it to (as have many on here).

But if you need aphrase that explicitly labels you as sexist then go ahead and use it.

You are really invested in denying there can be a gendered aspect to this aren't you?

A man who treats men and women differently is being sexist. In that instance, "Mansplaining" is absolutely the most appropriate term.

A woman who overexplains to one sex only might be accused of "womansplaining" but that term hasn't caught on because it's not a common enough experience that people see value in having a name for it.

And yes, people of either sex who assume everyone knows less than them are just patronising rather than man- or woman- splaining.

What you are missing is that all these terms are meaningful because they describe different things.

For example, since I don't know your gender, it would be fair to say I'm patronising you right now by explaining something so basic, except that since you genuinely don't seem to understand it's not really patronising at all, just tolerance and an attempt to educate.

Personally I think women have a habit of making things that happens to them be about gender, and not realizing that the same thing happens to men too. In my estimation the same men who mansplain to women do the same to men. It's a personality thing not a gendered issue.

You do realise women have memories, right? I mean, we can literally see the same men treating us differently to male colleagues. As I mentioned upthread, even male colleagues sometime notice and comment on it. We can see when someone does it to everyone vs when they only do it to women.

Personally I find it really weird how invested some people are in the idea that men can never be sexist.

Now, I would be onboard with a word that means "a person overexplaining to women when they don't to men" because I don't think being sexist towards women is exclusive to men. And maybe it's a shame that wasn't the term coined to describe the behaviour. But the reason the term "Mansplaining" caught on is not because women are being sexist but because it describes something many women (though of course not all women) recognise.

This!

this is good!!

Thanks for "splaining" that to me, but like so many you are happy to hide your sexism behind gendered wording.

By all means continue to be patronising and prentending that both sexes are not as guilty as each other for doing it.

Nice trick - claim describing sexist behaviour is sexism because it involves gendered language, pretend women highlighting the sexism are the problem rather than the actual sexism, and hey presto, it's all women's problem for noticing it.

God loves a trier I guess 😂

And I third this