4d ago

So proud!

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

407 comments

We agree that "mansplaining" means "When a man condescendingly explains a subject to a woman who is an expert in that subject, because he assumes being a woman makes her ignorant".
I'm saying "condescendingly" is defined by intent, even subconscious.
You're saying "condescendingly" is defined by perception, even inaccurate.
When I say it is being used differently, I'm talking about the shift from my definition of "condescendingly" to yours.
Although, there's also the "who is an expert in that subject" modifier on "woman" that has definitely been dropped in contemporary usage as well.
- No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is not some objective way for someone to know someone else's intentions. Say you believe something is a fire hazard. You say "that's a fire hazard." Turns out it's not a fire hazard. Have you used the term fire hazard differently than everyone else? No, of course not! You still used it to describe something you believed was a fire hazard, you were just mistaken about whether it was a fire hazard.
  I'm saying people who use the term mansplain aren't using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
  You're trying to make this about whether someone is correct in their assessment of whether someone is being condescending. I've said it multiple times that I'm talking about how people use it and not whether people agree that they're correct.
  If a woman says a man mansplained something and she believes the man is being condescending, then she's using the same definition you just said we agree on. Full stop. I don't believe women use the term differently. It does not matter what the intentions were. I am also not saying she would be right or wrong. Because all I have been talking about is how the term is used.
  If you hear a woman say something was mansplaining but you don't agree that the man was being condescending, that's okay, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it doesn't mean she was using the term to describe something that wasn't condescending. It just means you disagree that the man was being condescending.
  
  I'm saying people who use the term mansplain aren't using it differently, they actually do believe the person talking to them is condescending.
  Which brings us back to the "expert" angle which has been completely dropped. That's the mechanism that lends legitimacy to the accusation of condescension. That's what elevates a vague perception of condescension to an accurate assessment. Otherwise you're just flinging sexist slurs based on your immediate personal vibes.
  That's the change in meaning.
  
  I feel like you're just not paying attention to what I'm saying. I don't know how to make it more clear. The "immediate personal vibes" is really misunderstanding me. You seem to be taking what I'm saying as someone making a quick, possibly inaccurate snap judgement. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying people only have their own perception. They aren't telepathic. You seem to want to differentiate between people's opinions and what is objective. I'm telling you there is no objective way to interpret a social situation and that obviously people use their own interpretation of a situation when talking.
  Re: expert, again, it doesn't really matter. If the woman believes she is correct about something she believes is obvious and that the man explaining it is being condescending, she's using the term mansplaining correctly as you described it should be used. If the woman is factually incorrec, not an expert, and the man was being polite then she still used the term the way you said people should use it.
  
  The real question isn't what it means, but whether or not it's being overused. Even if the person using it knows its meaning and intends to use it that way, I think it's still reasonable to ask if it's being overused. Because we're really asking if the existence and support for the term is creating a social environment where its use does more harm than good. If it's mostly drawing attention to bad behavior so we can correct it, then it's doing good. But if it's causing people to see malice where there isn't any or being used itself as a weapon, then we can say it's being overused. I can't answer that question, but it does seem worth thinking about.
  
  I made it clear from the start that I'm only responding to the "people use it differently" thing, not whether people should use the term at all. Because it's a different discussion. I'm not condemning nor justifying the usage of the word. I'm only arguing that when people use it they are using it with the same definition the other user laid out.
  I'm not saying it's unreasonable to ask if it's overused, I'm saying that "I disagree that people use that term in the way you say" shouldn't be met with "people shouldn't use the term" because I've said multiple times I'm not saying anything about whether it's an acceptable term or not.
  
  For what it's worth, although it seems like a tangent, I do think that's what was originally meant in the comment that started this chain and I was trying to help. I agree that people are using it with its intended meaning (but could be making an error in judgement).
  
  Yeah, I don't see why that's such a difficult concept to grasp. I suppose maybe they believe their interpretation of scenarios is always the objectively correct one and also incredibly obvious so anyone with a different interpretation is wrong? Unsurprisingly, that's a pretty condescending way to view the world. They seemed to want to twist my words to make what I was saying into something about "snap judgements".

407 comments