Talk:Mansplaining/Archive1

Plus one

+1. Also might be worth mentioning how this concept can manifest with regard to other "axes of oppression", especially race- and LGBT-related experience. (And, conversely, how membership in one oppressed class is used as an excuse for "xyzsplaining" on a axis in which the person is actually a member of the oppressor class.) Blue (is useful) 19:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe that's just another way of phrasing the "Don't call me privileged, I'm gay" type thing. Blue (pester) 00:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This blog might be worth including. "Bonus points if he is explaining how you are wrong about something being sexist!" ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is the whole vidya games angle. The way Anita Sarkeesian has been treated for "not knowing about video games" for criticising sexism therein is pretty unpleasant. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 16:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

She's been criticized for "not knowing about video games" for not knowing about video games. I understand that this is unpleasant for you, but then it's also unpleasant for Jim Carrey fans when people say he doesn't know anything about vaccinations. (Come to think of it, they really only do it because he criticizes doctors for making children autistic :p)

Ridiculous

Assume the women beside you knows nothing about it, especially if it's cars, computers, guns, machines or other manly things. Explain it to her.
When I am talking to anyone about anything I happen to have a deep knowledge about I assume the person I am talking to doesn't know as much as I do so I'll explain interesting facts and convey knowledge. Whether male or female. it is ridiculous to claim it is some sort of issue that if I am a restorer of old Ford Mustangs that I am going to assume the woman I am talking to doesn't know as much as I do about the topic. Or a man. Your other points about abortion, woman's rights I agree with you. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Explaining something you have knowledge of, to someone you know has no knowledge of, is not 'mansplaining'. it's being a smart, educated/experienced person talking to someone with relative less experienc/knowledge. ASSUMING she does not know, because she's got tits, is manspalining. I doubt you do that. but i don't know, cause i don't live in your head.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I am still very much against that sentence being in the article - it is far too broad and could apply, inadvertently, to many situations. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

so your routinely ASSUME that the woman beside you knows nothing? I gotta say, i've never seen you do that. the "assume she knows nothing" is the key to mansplaining. without asking her, without listenign to her. it's not about the topic. it's about the attitude of the dude.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I routinely assume everyone, man and woman, knows nothing because I am an arrogant bastard but I ain't no misogynistic prick. But as you already put it you don't know what people are thinking in their heads which is why this sentence is much much too broad and could be apply, incorrectly, to people who you think are assuming it when in actually fact the situation has been misunderstood. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also about the fact that those in power can basically tell those not in power what is and isn't and expect it to be 'true.' Even when they weren't being discussed, when they don't understand or relate to the experiences that are being shared, etc. Mansplaining is this phenomenon when performed by men unto women: "You're not actually suffering, you're..." when if they'd just shut up for a second and listen they'd realize that they don't actually know everything; people just treat them like they do because they have that authority. You can also see this kind of behavior when a white person tries to tell a black person that they don't really face racism, it's all in their head... but it's not quite with the same connotations as mansplaining.±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 21:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL when a man is 1 on 1 with a woman he's talking to, he isn't in any way in power - unless she gives him that power (and not vice versa). Nor is he regarded as an authority unless he's really charismatic or has earned it somehow (same with her). If he's an idiot, that historic moment when he finally "shuts up and listens" won't be anywhere close to being the 1st time anyone told him so... and it won't be the first time it completely flies over his head. 84.187.113.176 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the points about Mansplaining when it comes to woman's issues. but the first part is too broad. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway - weaseloid has made it more specific so my objection has been satisfied. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And i get that my jokes may suck, but i think you are missing the humor that is underlined by the explinations of the entire article. as in, no one things intelligent men who are TEACHING someone, are mansplaining.... Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this idea of 'mansplaining'. How does the woman know that the man is being condescending for sexist reasons and not just regular reasons? It would seem that the woman would need to assume the man is sexist because he disagrees with her. Also - given that 'mansplain' is a sexist term, why are feminists using it? ^{— Unsigned, by: 121.44.67.233 / talk / contribs}

Only way I have seen this word being used is as a way to inform someone that they are not allowed to express their opinion. This issue has been touched in this article too, but it might be good if there was mention of the way this term is used most of the time --> You have no right to speak, understand this or banhammer is coming. So it is at least here in depths of Onlinestan. It is one of those privilege things i guess. In any issue we should always let that wheelchair bound, overweight, dark skinned, "intellectually disabled", transgender, "little person" with voice box and bipolar disorder to have the first and most valued say on the matter... And others should check their privilege and agree. But that was just about that one way of using this term. ^{— Unsigned, by: 84.248.52.73 / talk / contribs}

WOW!! How the mighty have fallen. The fact that this is an article on RationalWiki should tell anyone all they need to know about the depths this site has sunk to. Un-frigging-believable. When did the infestation of feminists and SJW's begin I wonder? Thanks for this! Anyone ever cites rationalwiki as a source to me and I'll just direct them to this travesty of thought and its sister pages. You guys should seriously consider a rebrand Fluffwiki? Pinkwiki? Jezewiki? Any still remaining actual rationalists on this site? I feel sorry for you, I really do. All that hard work trashed by gender-studies pseuds. ^{— Unsigned, by: Winston Smith III / talk / contribs}

Thought you'd pissed off in a huff. Still not learned to sign, I see. Scream!! (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, were they ever any different? I remember someone asking on a talk page once: "Why did this site get hijacked by radfems", and some apparent veteran responded "what do you mean hijacked? we've always been here".

Anyway, for what it's worth, and for all I know, it only really gets this bad in two areas: the whole drama revolving around Anita Sarkeesian, and the whole drama revolving around the atheist community. Plus some general feminist pages, though this article is like at least 50% alright. There's an admitted "liberal bias" in political topics which I don't think is exceedingly strong, and, for what little it's worth, I've seen no reason to doubt its reliability when it comes to all those religious/scientific topics. Pretty sure most people coming this site don't even read about this internet drama bullshit... but yea, when it comes to those, it's a complete and utter joke. 84.187.113.176 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to move "you just don't understand what sexism is!" under "not to be confused with" lmao

Because every single line in that section happens to be something the writers of this page obviously confused with mansplaining.

"These discussions often lead to women saying "This is why I feel the site/topic is sexist," or "I feel unwelcome here, because of..." Mansplainers come out of the woodwork to explain to women that the women don't really "understand what sexism is," or "are taking it wrong and shouldn't be feeling that way""

Sexism is an objective thing - it is an attitude, a motivation, a behavior pattern that is, in simple terms, either there or not there. The perception or "feeling" of being in an environment that's sexist against you, is not sexism, nor does it prove that the environment is actually sexist.

If those women use their feelings as an argumentative springboard to CLAIM there's sexism, using logical and objective arguments against that claim isn't mansplaining. Esepcially since someone who thinks their feelings are sufficient evidence doesn't likely know as much or more about the topic :)

If they just mention their feelings and the men start rebutting claims of sexism, they're not so much mansplaining as missing the point / strawmanning.

Telling them that since there's no sexism, their feelings don't matter, is just dismissive, though sometimes valid.

Telling them what they should feel is the only thing so far that does fit the definition to a degree - as long as those feelings are supposed to be unique to females rather than universally human / shared by males in other situations (hey, that's what healthy discussions are for, aren't they), AND, if the angle isn't "this is what would be rational of you to feel".

"Taking it wrong", well, maybe they know that because they're the ones who "gave"? When you've got Alice who says or does X expecting it to be understood as X, and Bob who perceives it as an Y because he thinks that's how it should be perceived, what you've got is first and foremost a MISUNDERSTANDING in which neither party is necessarily the one with the final say. Depending on the situation, either of them might be the one who ought to accomodate. Which is why... yea, it's possible for this to be an example of mainsplaining when the right conditions are met.

Now, people exposed to, say, prejudice may very well develop extra radars to pick up "subtle signals" that others don't notice - which is why I'm not saying feelings and instincts have no weight at all. However, they also may be catching a lot of false positives, or (especially with the help of ideology) interpret possible implications of prejudice as definitely prejudice, which is why it's a murky area and usually can't trump known facts and reasoned conclusions.

"or simply "those things don't really matter to our issue at large, and distract us from our group's goals.""

What exactly is going on here?

If it's the feelings that don't matter, or real experiences not resulting from sexism, it's that same dismissal - not mansplaining.

If sexism could be demonstrated and is the thing that doesn't matter, then it's dismissal of a real issue - bad as it may be, not mansplaining.

___

"Before she had written one word, an avalanche of gamers came out to tell her she was wrong,"

They may have prematurely concluded that her new videogame videos would be as offensively and hair-raisingly dumb and absurd as her previous work concerning songs and TV shows. They were soon to regret their fallacious presumptuousness - the new videos turned out to be less hair-raisingly dumb and absurd.

At any rate, being condescending to someone with a really bad track record when it comes to saying correct things, kinda goes against the very core of what mansplaining is supposed to be.

Yea yea, I get it - you folks obviously think she's an academic expert and they're totally mean and arrogant for looking down at her. Yea well - you folks are nothing more than her fan club supporting her in everything she says, so what kind of authority are you? :p

"there was no sexism in video games,"

Well, her previous track record in detecting sexism had been awful, and has still been pretty bad since; aside from that, she wasn't the first to make such arguments and they may have been talking from experience of encountering those arguments before. The more ignorant, emotional parts of said avalanche might be said to have been "mansplaining", but then not really - sexism is an objective issue.

"women are more strongly portrayed than ever before,"

Doesn't even Anita agree? I don't remember her saying that equality had actually REGRESSED at any point in the medium's history.

"and oh by the way, why does she care, women don't play video games""

Don't play video games = mansplaining.

A minority plays video games = not. Being a woman doesn't give you magical knowledge about what all the other women are up to. 93.223.5.152 (talk)

Cheers, BoN Scream!! (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Gulp. 84.187.113.176 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"A columnist for Destructoid put together a half-assed response" Anita's arguments are half-assed. Your moms' offsprings' biased fanboy wiki is half-assed..In what position do you think you are to call reasoned opposition like that article "half-assed"?

"to Sarkeesian's specific criticisms that ended up coming across as a justification for why sexism is actually okay." "Coming across"... nice! I see what you did there. So, now that we've established that it came across to you wrong - where did he justify sexism, and where did he acknolwedge any sexism in those examples to justify? Lmao he didn't find or or justify any sexism. So then why are you saying he did? Cause it... came across to you as if he didd Why did it come across to you as if he did, when he didn't?

"(At one point, the author claims that her criticism of sexualized school-girl-costumes for female game characters is illegitimate because the character in question "enjoys donning a school-costume ... If she really enjoys dressing up ... who are we to deny her that right?" Because, of course, the character wasn't created that way by anyone...)" At one point, the author claims his criticism of how Tolkien desribes masses of soldiers dying in battle is illegitimate because the story in question is an epic, powerful tale about good overcoming evil, at great personal cost but ultimately coming out stronger in the end... how can we really condemn a story like that. I mean, it's not like someone CREATED that battle, and sent off that evil overlord to raid completely innocent characters...

I'm not sure what you think that proves: you certainly can find problems in how Tolkien describes his world (orcs close to stereotypical savages, the "dark men" tainted by evil, his letter comparing dwarves to Jews, etc). The point of it is that you can't defend the "choices" of a fictional person (or the "reality" of a fictional world) because they are the choices of a real person, namely the author. The character herself doesn't enjoy doing anything because she isn't real. King Skeleton (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"you certainly can find problems in how Tolkien describes his world (orcs close to stereotypical savages, the "dark men" tainted by evil, his letter comparing dwarves to Jews, etc)"

Um, that doesn't really have anything to do with what I said, but yes - all of those are things that could be considered a "problem" by certain overly concerned liberals. The invalid, ludircrous complaint that I described, however, is closer to what maybe somewhat more sensitive people might say about horror films or such, as in "oh how immoral of you to kill all those innocent people, you think sparing one maked up for that?"... then of course, once you start seeing certain demographic patterns in, say, who's killed and when, the liberals suddenly appear out of thw woodwork as well, as if summoned! So maybe it's not all that unrelated after all ;)

"The point of it is that you can't defend the "choices" of a fictional person (or the "reality" of a fictional world) because they are the choices of a real person, namely the author."

Maybe if you hadn't spent all this time musing about how problematic it is for the greedy dwarves to be Scots I mean Jews, you wouldn't have completely missed the point by now.

Fine, you aksed for it: "The point is that you can't defend Faramir's choice to let the ring go rather than take it for himself and kill his whole family and their horses, because they are the choices of a real person, namely Tolkien."

"The character herself doesn't enjoy doing anything because she isn't real."

Would you rather she didn't enjoy herself? :p 84.187.113.176 (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You can't defend Faramir's choice because Faramir is not a real person and did not make a choice. You can only defend Tolkien's choice to construct the character and the world in the manner he did. The same with any character: you can use the "it's her choice" argument for how a real woman chooses to dress, but it doesn't apply to an imaginary one because how she dresses and how she feels about it is decided by her creator. If I said a male character liked to go around wearing only a condom filled with fire ants, you couldn't argue he didn't like that, but you could sure as hell question just what the fuck is wrong with me for designing that character.

Also I didn't spend any time musing, Tolkien himself said the dwarves were supposed to be like Jews in one of his letters. It's hardly idle speculation when you can quote the author himself saying as much. King Skeleton (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"because Faramir is not a real person and did not make a choice"

Well I'm glad you're at least consistent. Most people discussing Lord's plot, or moral themes or whatever, they won't be reminding themselves 24/7 that he's not a real person, they'll just be like "so he's one of the good guys; he did the right thing", and then someone might be like "but what about the loyalty to his people, he might've saved thousands of Gondor soldiers if he'd taken the ring", and then someone else would reply to that still talking about Faramir as if he were real, because that's kinda the whole point and that's how most normal people perceive fiction.

"You can only defend Tolkien's choice to construct the character and the world in the manner he did."

Wrong - because I can equally defend Tolkien's choice to make Boromir try to kill people, but I can't defend Boromir's choice to kill a bunch of people. Virtually no one with any passing interest in these kinds of topics would find that puzzling or confusing.

"but it doesn't apply to an imaginary one because how she dresses and how she feels about it is decided by her creator."

When you've understood tha above, you'll also understand this one.

"It's hardly idle speculation" Neither are their Scottish accents in the movies. Please pay attention to what you're replying to. 84.187.113.176 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about suspension of disbelief, which is the standard position when reading / watching / etc a fictional work, but not when criticising one. You generally step outside it to treat the fiction as a work created by someone when doing so: for example, if you treat a painting as if it were a photograph you loose the ability to talk about things like anatomy, composition, colour choices, and so on. All you can really do is describe it, under those conditions.

Boromir's choices are Tolkien's choices, because Boromir is an imaginary person who does only the things the author decided he should do, in a world constructed so it made sense for him to do them. The construction of that world is still the author's responsibility, and the choices he made in doing so are still worthy of consideration. You don't have to defend Boromir's choices, but if those choices create problems for you in the story (which in this case they don't), you should consider why Tolkien chose to write him that way.

Take Anakin Skywalker as an example instead. Anakin does a lot of really nonsensical shit in the prequels: is that Anakin's fault, or George Lucas' fault for writing Anakin as a moron? Or take Frank Herbert's Dune, with it's increasing veering off into creepy sexual stuff that has almost nothing to do with the story (culminating in a woman awakening an underaged clone by giving him a handjob, as I recall). After a while you stop thinking "wow, these bad guys are creepy and evil and shit" and get more into "why does Frank choose to focus so much on this weird creepy shit? Is he into it or something?"

And I hate to tell you this, but JRR Tolkien had been dead for quite some time when Peter Jackson made his movies and so I suspect he probably wasn't particularly involved in the casting process. King Skeleton (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when criticizing one. Had you not done that premature slash list interruptua back there, it would've gone on to say "reading / watching / discussing / criticizing / etc.".

Now, you can choose to "step outside" and analyze a work from a specific angle, like for instance how accurately this new installment of Flesh Gordon portrays space travel - but it'll be a peripheral, marginal perspective on the work, as any analysis that ignores the core of what the work in question is, and why it exists, basically misses the mark and can't amount to a valuable critical work telling you HOW GOOD IT IS AT WHAT IT DOES. Now, it's totally fine to do that, as long as you're aware of the fact that you're treading peripheral areas here - if you're not, expect to see completely justified labels like "ivory tower snob", "out-of-touch", "nerd", "political animal" or simply "typical critic lol", depending on the themes/angle of your analysis, thrown at you in dismissive derision.

If your movie is a camp porno parody, then you should criticize it as a camp porno parody. If it's a heroic tale that explores moral dilemmas, then there's little of value that you can say about it if you refuse to apply real-life values and ethics to its fictional plot - which means, dismissively saying that none of that matters as it's just the creator playing with his puppets, is not the way to go about it. Now, on the other hand, if it's a kinky porno parody then that's exactly the RIGHT way to do it, and treating the depicted events as if they were real would be the height of absurdity and tone-deafness ;)

"You generally step outside it to treat the fiction as a work created by someone when doing so" This is only a generally reasonable perspective when treating it as a "literary school assignment", so to speak, examining how well it does what it does (uses tropes, constructs a narrative, tone etc.) in comparison to similar works. But still, while you're not sitting there sweating over what's gonna happen in the next chapter, you still "understand" this to be the intention of the work (unless it isn't), and judge it for what it is and tries to be.

You might not say something like "ohmygawd Faramir is like so keeeewl, he totally lets Sam go, it's like amazing?", but you'll still recognize that this is a fictional world that's supposed to operate by values and rules similar to our own, where the reader and author are on the side of the moral characters and opposed to the villainous ones, and the author having orcs burn down a village is not the author committing virtual mass murder (in contrast, say, to a Roland Emmerich movie where you're supposed to revel in the destruction at least to some degree).

"You generally step outside it to treat the fiction as a work created by someone when doing so" should continue as "operating under the premise that the fictional world created is designed to operate as a 1:1 reflection of the author's and target audience's values". You saying something like "since it's really Tolkien controlling Faramir, his moral action really isn't one, or not his own" is flying right over this premise and loudly plunging into the dork pool right next to the fence.

If you've got some slice-of-life ensemble piece in which one character is a sexually liberated, flirtatious and provocatively dressing woman, and it's supposed to be a positive thing / acceptable personality trait just like in real life, as the rest of the fictional setting is also supposed to be a "mirror" of reality with the same motivations and the same values, then it's completely valid to take those values you'd apply in reality, and apply them to the fiction version as well as the author expressing those same values through fiction.

Putting that character and making her the protagonist of a fantasy action adventure, doesn't necessarily alter that basic premise.

"and the choices he made in doing so are still worthy of consideration."

IF he painted it as a good thing to do, that would be worthy of "consideration".

"is that Anakin's fault, or George Lucas' fault for writing Anakin as a moron?"

Sometimes multiple perspectives are valid. Jorge is generally that kind of creator who doesn't really seem to get what he's doing, so whether Anakin was *supposed* to be a moron is debatable. However, just as inaccurate science is acceptable when it's not claimed to be accurate, whereas in Star Trek's Threshold or The Chase it's definitely a flaw as the authors were genuinely cónfused about basic principles of IRL evolutionary theory, it's Anakin's fault if he was supposed to be stupid, and the author's fault if he wasn't. This is further complicated by the fact that Star Wars is, to a significant degree, a post-modern-ish escapist adventure that runs on tropes andin which magical thinking is valid - which means that certain actions that would be stupid in real life (following your instincts, trusting that creepy guy with the pill, or recklessly rushing in to save your loved one because then the world will reward you with defeating the evil tyranny as well, aren't actually stupid in that make-believe world - largely because this is escapism, and we would LIKE those actions to be valid).

In the case of EpIII, my take on it is that Anakin is psychologically confused/conflicted and hence more irrational than stupid - which also partially justifies Christensen's dubious acting. Other "stupidities", like 4 Jedi running off to arrest Palpatine without sending any live transmissions or protocols, aren't actually stupid because that's what would happen if it were taking place in ancient Rome or something, and part of Star Wars is paying homage to stories taking place in ancient times of swords and magic and putting them into a futuristic SF setting. However, ALL of this is subject to debate.

"After a while you stop thinking "wow, these bad guys are creepy and evil and shit" and get more into "why does Frank choose to focus so much on this weird creepy shit? Is he into it or something?""

I'm not familiar with Dune, so as far as I'm concerned, there are many different possibilities:

-It could be an attempt to terrorize the reader by putting good characters into really bad and gross situations, or make them hate the villains. In that case, it's that same 1:1 thing as with Tolkien putting hobbits into the hands of twisted torturous cockney orcs, except more gross and more intense and more perverse.

-Similarly, but more distanced, it could be an exploration of the "bad things that could happen if this kinda of technology were possible" question characteristic of speculative fiction.

-It could be some meta / camp thing to create "trash" and "debauchery", i.e. the setting turns more into a toy farm not supposed to be taken at face value.

-It could be a kinky fantasy ("age play" in this case), which "Frank" is "in to", as well as his target audience. Kinks are fantasies confined to fiction and consensual roleplay and don't reflect the person's real values or real desires.

-He could be a "sick fuck" putting what he'd actually like to do or see in real life but knows is wrong into the safe environment of fiction.

-He's an immoral individual who thinks it's alright to do those things, and expresses his values in his books just like George Lucas expresses his (correct) values that fighting an evil tyranny is quite an alright thing to do in his.

Now call me crazy, but somehow I doubt the latter two are the case - if you want a possible example of that kind of thing, there are people who say the author of the "Gor" novels is a misogynistic asshole who channelled his thinly veiled views into his fictional work, while others think he wrote down steamy hot S&M fantasies and sometimes emulate them IRL as role play. Jordan Owen, one of the evil guys behind "The Sarkeesian Effect", actually represents the former view ;)

Anyway, if I had to guess, I'd say it's some kind of mix of the other four variants - a lot of genre fiction does that, make you root for the good/innocent characters and reflecting proper values and all, but also mixing in some kinky elements here and there, or make you admire the wise-cracking villains in an ironic or distanced fashion. But it could be either or neither of those.

"so I suspect he probably wasn't particularly involved in the casting process."

My point was that you probably don't have a problem with them being Scots, but as soon as it's "Jews", one of those "protected groups" among social liberals, it's suddenly a "problem". What's wrong exactly with basing some fictional race on some traits associated with real-life nationalities, or even stereotypes of those?

At any rate, I don't remember reading those letters, so I don't know what he said about Jews there. Maybe there was something "problematic" in there, I don't know - but I wouldn't take your word for it ;) 84.187.113.176 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This entire section of the article is nothing but insulting tripe, and should be removed or changed beyond recognition. Just kidding - leave it there; the more obvious the immediately visible signs of how utterly horse this wiki is when it comes to this topic, the fewer valuable hours wasted by curious casual readers and/or fence-sitters trying to assess its quality. The power of advertising, eh? 93.223.5.152 (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible Ad Hominem?

While the idea of "mansplaining" may have merit, RationalWiki needs to clarify that it should not be used as an ad hominem to shut down legitimate discussion just because one party is a man. Thoughts?

I find the term to be used a lot of times to shut down discussions, simply because one party is male. It's illogical to dismiss information that may be more truthful than the accusers due to physical and genetic characteristics. Sure, a man will most likely never experience childbirth, but if he has done the research, and knows extensive information about a topic, his opinion is still valid. I'm also annoyed that there is no term for the reverse. Just because women don't have to experience a kick in the balls, or pissing out a kidney stone through an incredibly tiny space doesn't make a woman who happens to be well-informed on the topic's opinion any less legitimate. EuroBurro (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree.--Deli-delibirda! (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's really ironic that women claim men do this

Because plenty of women talk condescendingly to men too, as though men are idiots. An example is when a guy gets court-ordered into a sex offender or domestic violence treatment program, and there's some woman in charge of the group therapy, telling the probationers week after week why viewing child porn or hitting your wife are wrong. Women usually don't have to go through these kinds of programs, because when they fuck an underage guy or hit their boyfriend, he's unlikely to call the cops about it; he'll just go on his merry way and be glad that he had an opportunity for any kind of sexual relationship with a woman, regardless of his age at the time or whether she sometimes lost her temper and got violent with him. When he tells the story to his friends later, they'll be like "oh, you lucky dog, I wish I'd gotten to fuck a MILF when I was 15" or "yeah, that crazy booty is the best, huh?"

There are sometimes men in charge of these treatment groups as well, but the leaders who really are on the warpath are typically feminist women. The male leaders tend to be more laid back and less angrily judgmental about the whole situation. The feminists look at their work as part of an ideological crusade intended to wipe out not just sick behavior but organized evil propagated by the patriarchy.

I would even go so far as to say that the legal system (with the femsplaining its court-ordered shrinks engage in) is the weapon of choice for women to use to exert power over men and punish them. It's intended to crush their spirits by treating them as though they're completely untrustworthy to ever change their thoughts or behavior without constant supervision and reminders. I know a guy who had some CP on his computer for months or years, that his girlfriend knew about. When they broke up, she finally reported it to the cops and got him arrested. He's going to be listening to a lot of femsplaining in his weekly treatment groups for the foreseeable future, about how he needs to avoid "risk relevant" behavior like drinking alcohol. (Most sex offenders aren't allowed to drink alcohol, under the theory that it could lower their inhibitions to re-offending.) The fact that the forced re-education goes on and on and on has to be regarded as patronizing, because how could someone not get the message more quickly than that? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the most obvious trolling ever. My prediction is that the usual suspects will be along soon to "argue" against you; good times. Tielec01 (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought I made a pretty good point. There is a LOT of femsplaining that goes on, like all these "What is consent?" classes and videos that they try to show all undergraduate men so they'll understand what kind of behavior will count as rape, as though they don't already know. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this page is wrong

1. Knowledge is not gender-based. And even if it is experience-based, it is genuinely possible for a woman to be less informed than a man on a women-centric issue. Or should RW eliminate it's pages on female MRAs? (For that matter, what about pages on black supremacists? Can only blacks truly understand how to solve anti-black oppression?)
2. Most of the "smug" and "talk louder" behavior falls under being an asshole, rather than being a man. Most of the "I understand the science of vaginas" behavior is being a Republican, rather than being a man. (Think of how many females [and makes!] fail to understand how birth control works, for example. This failure is not gender-based -- they're just ignorant.)

I think RW should criticize this concept, not support it. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I kind of get the point you're making, but: here's a recent blog about the kinds of harassment & unwanted attention that women endure on a daily basis & which men observe only irregularly & as an outside observer, & about how the typical male attitude ("you should ignore it & not respond") falls more under privileged & ignorant good intentions than it does under "being an asshole". ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that nuanced tone is pretty reasonable -- but it's not reflected by the article. EG: Mansplaining#Congressional_Birth_Control_Panel is an example of ignorance, not being male. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A blogpost

[1]:

I asked several men, including my husband, what most bothers them about the current feminist movement. I know all of these guys, and each of them views women as equals. I have no doubt whatsoever that every one of them have and would stand up for my rights any day of the week. Here are some of the things they said:

Me: May I ask an honest question about the term “mansplaining” without unintentionally starting something? Is there ever a situation in which that term is acceptable? For example, a man is a total patriarch-type, views women as dumb, talks down to them, etc. If a woman accuses him of “mansplaining” to her, is that still derogatory to all of you? Is it preferable we just call him an asshole and move on?

The Men: Mansplaining is a hypocritical and sexist term. A “misogynistic asshole” is the proper term.

Me: I can work with that. So “mansplaining” is a term that should be eliminated. Period. Because it does seem insulting to all men, whereas “misogynistic” calls out the specific behavior.

The Men: It’s misandry. What if I told you that “mansplaining” is more often used as code for “your penis makes your opinion invalid” than for the purpose you cite? So if it’s perfectly okay to insult and denigrate all men by accusing anyone with something to say that you don’t like of ‘mansplaining,’ why isn’t it okay to insult and denigrate all women with PMS jokes? And when you answer, do I get to accuse you of ‘womansplaining?’ Didn’t think so.

What did I learn from this? In five minutes, I learned that the use of one word would turn off my allies. They find it insulting, and I understand that. The solution offered is an easy one.

FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh gee. That's what the men said? All several of them? I guess that's that then. You can't argue with several. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Condesplaining

When the condescension isn't based in male privilege, or when people just want an ungendered term for whatever reason, I've seen "condesplaining" used. Can that be worked into the article, maybe in the section that talks about other forms of privilege? 24.84.15.242 (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fair, assuming it's added in a competent way and sources are used where needed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Mansplain mansplaining

Should we have a fun article that mansplains the term?—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 07:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)