So proud!

Here's an example of "mansplaining": I've been beekeeping for close to ten years. A gentleman joined our group recently who has had maybe a few months' experience. Wearing a brand new bee suit and gloves, he proceeded to tell me how to carry out a basic hive inspection. He was not assuming I shared his exact knowledge, he was assuming I knew even less than him.

The term mansplaining came about because it encapsulates a very common scenario. I know a few chaps who constantly explain stuff to me that I know a lot more about than they do, and in a very condescending way. One old codger even patted me on the head and said, "A young thing like you wouldn't know about MS-DOS." I bought my first computer in 1984.

I haven't found mansplaining as prevalent among young men, I must say. They seem more open and egalitarian in their approach, more respectful. Though a friend told me, "It's because you remind them of their granny."

You're right. The behavior really should be called "non-consensual info-dumping". Furthermore, people should ask first and only proceed to 'splain away if emphatic consent is given.

That's the key. I LOVE explaining things I'm passionate about but it's rude to just go wild on people, so I've developed a process to gauge familiarity and interest.

So when my ex-husband first went to vet tech school they, at some point, learned about menstruation. He proceeded to explain to me, a middle aged woman, how periods work, lol.

So your ex-husband was an asshole. Cool story, but the world is full of condescending assholes of all kinds and polite people of all kinds.
- Right, just an example of the behavior of note in action. Correct, he was also a condescending asshole. I think those are prerequisites.
- That's great input! Good job pete!

Dude ngl so I was accused of mansplaining by an ex while explaining some technical shit I was talking about and I knew she didn't know, claiming she did in fact know..

Assume that ~~everyone else~~ she shares their exact knowledge?

And that's exactly what I did, upon her request. I stopped explaining technical terms when talking about something assuming she'll just know what a buffer tube and an H3 weight are. Turns out that made her "feel stupid" which of course wasn't my intention, I intended to both A) comply with her literal request as per respecting boundaries, and B) hope she'd see just how ineffective of a system that is for communication. Turns out I was the asshole for doing as she asked, who knew. She threatened to shoot me (she wasn't gonna do shit but still threatening to isn't exactly "chill") when we broke up for the crime of checks notes spending my own money legally, so I'm sure I was the problem lol.

There's not much of a point to that story really other than I enjoy telling it but I rarely get to since it's rarely relevant, and to say don't bother assuming everyone knows things, they might just hate that too lol. Danged if ya do danged if ya don't, I'm royally danged.

I've already heard the term "gaysplaining" unironically more than once in the bisexual sphere to call out gay people that try to gaslight bi people into thinking that they're not really bi.

Sounds like a conversation that devolved into generalization and prejudice, treating each other as symbols of their identifies rather than individuals.
I'm sure it happens. Tons of bigoted shit happens. That doesn't make it okay.
As we all know, a bi person dating a different gender than themselves is just confused and straight, while a bi person dating their own gender is pretending to be gay to fit into LGBTQ spaces. /s

"Mansplaining" is describing something sexist. It describes a real phenomenon that is necessarily gendered.

It's not sexist for the same reason terms like "anti-semitism" or "gay bashing" aren't prejudiced. They're descriptive of a real thing that happens.

Terminology like this can help women navigate problems that men don't have. If you don't see the value in it, maybe that's because you've never experienced that problem.

I don't know...my wife wifesplains things to me...assuming I'm a toddler and I'm not loading the dishwasher optimally; despite me knowing how to run computational fluid dynamics software and being aware of water flow optimiztion. 😀
- That must be really frustrating.
Bit of a difference between "mansplaining" and the other terms in that the other terms mention the target of the action, leaving the actor ambiguous. Anyone could be anti-semitic or bash gay people. Mansplaining is a term specifically coined to say that only men can perform condescending infodumps. What's worse, nowadays it's often used just for men explaining things they're not sure if the other person knows. Some of us are also neurodivergent and have trouble picking up even fairly obvious social cues. I know it's a problem for me with ADHD and I know there's also "tism infodumps". Both disorders affect women too (and ADHD in women is underdiagnosed), but I've never heard "womansplaining" used as a term, nor do I think it would be appropriate. It'd be a hella sexist term.
I'm sure there's quite a few men out there who legitimately are so condescending, they feel they have to explain basic things to "dumb women". But I'm willing to bet most cases of "mansplaining" are some guy being an idiot and missing hints from the other party in the conversation, as well as just misjudging what is common knowledge and what isn't.
It doesn't help that women are just more polite and more likely to let you finish talking even when they know everything lol
- It doesn't help that women are just more polite and more likely to let you finish talking even when they know everything lol
  I was agreeing with you sooo heavily until this last paragraph. This is a biased generalization of women, and arguably an implied contrast to men.
  
  Maybe it's just the people I know? Could even just be the upbringing in a formerly soviet nation, it used to be pretty socially conservative in many ways here. Younger people are starting to break out of that pattern luckily. All I know is, in my generation and older ones, on average, guys tend to be more loud and in your face, more likely to interrupt you while talking.
- But I’m willing to bet most cases of “mansplaining” are some guy being an idiot and missing hints from the other party in the conversation, as well as just misjudging what is common knowledge and what isn’t.
  If you're a man, who are you to invalidate the experiences of women like that?
  If someone overuses the term and accuses someone of mansplaining when that's not what they're doing, by all means call it out. I've been unfairly accused of mansplaining before. But that had nothing to do with the word itself and everything to do with the person who said it. Not having access to that word wouldn't have made them more reasonable.
  Meanwhile the word describes an experience that you have never had, and you're sitting here saying that most of the people who have had it actually haven't. That's kind of fucked up, dude. Take a step back.
  
  The term literally is sexist because it implies it's only bad when men do it. These days it's used to describe any time a man explains anything. It's lost any meaning it may have had originally.
  White knightism is sexism in its own right too, because it brings to the table the assumption that women are weaker and need protection, thus not equal to men,
  
  Because you seem to have missed it:
  It's describing something that is really happening.
  There is a systemic bias that exists where men treat women this way. It's a problem that these women have to deal with. Trust in the experience of people who are actually in this situation instead of trying to invalidate them to feed your need to win arguments on the internet.
  
  I never said it doesn't happen. I said it's overblown.
  Online, literally anything a man has ever said seems to be described as mansplaining now. Offline, I've barely heard anyone complain about it - only talking about car mechanics I believe. And I've got some people in my circles who are pretty vocal about gender dynamics issues.
  
  👍
  
  Just because something happens doesn't make it okay to generalize that behavior across an entire identity.
  "Mansplaining" is a pretty mild example but we can look at other more extreme ones. One of the most classic is racists who love to say "Do you know 50% of crime is committed by 13% of the population?", and use that as justification to the idea that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals. And they may occasionally walk it back and try to say shit like "not you, you're one of the good ones".
  Or it's like someone who feels as though they got taken advantage of in a business deal saying they got "jew'd". And then trying to say "well no I'm not antisemitic, but I've personally seen and heard of Jews conducting business unfairly. And it's common enough that the term has arisen, so it's gotta be somewhat true. And if you are a Jew who conducts business fairly then I'm not talking about you". If you encountered someone trying to say that, you would be quite correct to respond by saying "wow that's actually really fucking antisemitic". And this is the exact same thing you are trying to argue with the word "mansplaining".

Not gonna lie, I had no idea until this post that "mansplaining" was strictly considered male behavior. I've had women do the same thing when I'm in spaces or situations that are traditionally female dominated, and figured that "mansplaining" was the appropriate descriptor for that. TIL.

And yes, women can mansplain

Nope

Anyone can "mansplain," so better to say "womansplain," "non-binarysplain," etc. as applicable.

English already haz gender-neutral words for this. For an adjective, we have "condescending". For a verb, we have pontificate, garage, bloviate, bluster, rant, etc.
Language changes and evolves over time, so we could also make a new word for this phenomenon. "Mansplaining" is unnecessary gendered slur.
- pontificate, harangue, bloviate, bluster, rant
  None of those words impart the same meaning as "mansplain." A new word would be preferable.
  
  Bloviate pretty much covers what I do on work phone calls. In my defense (mildly), I welcome whenever someone interrupts me.
- garage
  Is that a typo or is there a definition of garage that is synonymous with bloviate that my dictionary doesn't list?
  
  Lol autocorrect REALLY doesn't like the word "harangue"
  
  Don't you garage to me!
- "Language changes and evolves over time, so we could also make a new word for this phenomenon."
  We did, you just don't like it.
  
  Yes.
  There's a lot of words people have created that have been deemed hateful, bigoted, and harmful. We call these "slurs".
  
  And English is a very contextual language so something can be a slur in one use and not in another.
  
  Is that actually true? I'm struggling to think of any examples.
  There are occasions where a technical term is used as a slur in casual conversations while still being perfectly acceptable in the original context. "removed" for example. That certainly does not apply here.
  There's some words that are more or less offensive in different English-speaking countries. "Cunt" and "Bloody" come to mind there. There's also been some attempt at reclaiming "cunty" for women which... Eh, I'm just gonna stay away from that one.
  "Mansplaining" is offensive from it's very etymology. It's baked into the word without cultural context. The word itself is formed from unnecessary and bigoted generation.
  
  The word is formed from an experience common enough that the word caught on overnight. We don't need to get #notallmen about this.
  (Also, "I'm struggling to think of examples": thinks of several examples)
  
  So when someone says "hey did you know 50% of the crime is committed by 13% of the population"... Sounds like they are describing a common experience. So by that logic does that mean it's not racist to say black people are criminals? If a black person got offended by that would you tell them "we don't need to get #notallblackpeople" about this.
  For large swaths of western history Jewish people had a disproportionate control of banks and the money supply. Does this mean that the conspiracy theories about Jewish cabals controlling the world aren't anti-Semitic?
  How common does an experience have to be by your logic in order to suddenly make generalization and prejudice acceptable? If one trans person gets caught sexually assaulting a woman in a public restroom does that mean JK Rowling was suddenly right all along?
  And you clearly did not understand what I wrote. I came up with the closest examples I could think of and then explained how they were not applicable to the situation.
  It seems like you really just want to be able to have a little bit of bigotry, a little bit of hatred. As a treat.
  
  Alright well the key difference is that males are not a historically disadvantaged class and that makes a big difference.
  Do you rail against "Karen" as an insult? What about philistine, Luddite, or barbarian? Do you fight this hard against "eat the rich" or ACAB?
  
  "Karen" is a character, a specific trope. It happens to be a woman, but there is no inherent generalization that all women are Karens. It's gender-specific so I would use something gender-neutral instead, but it is not generalizing behavior across a group of people. The biggest issue with it is that it's unfair to people named Karen. Also maybe it's just me but I haven't seen or heard anyone use this in a couple years now.
  I haven't heard anyone use the words "Phillistine" or "Luddite" as insults in probably more than a decade. If anything, I've seen the Luddites get a bit of a resurgence in popularity as an important early labor movement against capitalists. A lot of their concerns turned out to be true, and we are seeing parallels today with the rise of AI.
  "Barbarian" means someone who is non-Greek, and later the Romans used it to mean someone who is non-Roman. This is a similar example to "removed" where it is context-dependent. The word "mansplaining" does not stem from an inoffensive use like this, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
  Eat the Rich and All Cops Are Bastards are fucking based, because being wealthy and being a class traitor are choices these individuals are making, not identities. I would call serial murderers monsters, and racists pieces of shit.
  I'd say "nice try" but really this attempt kinda feels like you're just throwing shit at the wall in the holes that something sticks. It's almost impressive how hard you are fighting to feel good about using sexist microagressions.

If you don't do it, then don't worry. The term doesn't apply to you.

No, it applies to "men", and I identify as one.
That's like whenever racists say shit like "hey did you know 50% of crimes are committed by 13% of the population?", a black person calling out the racism, and then being dismissed by saying "well if you don't commit crimes they aren't talking about you".
- Look, you're not wrong. It's just really hard for me to take it seriously.
  Does it truly hurt your feelings that men are stereotyped as overbearing and condescending? Are you truly injured by this stereotype? Are you personally treated differently because of it?
  Maybe it's just the people that hang out with, but I don't find that any of them have had this phrase used against them. It seems more like we're trying very hard to be offended because we have so little else to be offended by. In the name of fairness.
  But that's just me and my friends. Maybe you get teased with this incessantly and it really causes you emotional trauma. In that case, I apologize, and please tell me your story.
  
  I've never had this phrase used against me personally, but that's probably because I don't really talk much with bigots.
  If we want to build a world that is equal and just for everyone, we cannot afford to keep perpetuating these hateful divisions. I understand that historically, the vast majority of oppressors have been cis (allegedly) straight men, and in the US and Europe they have been white as well. So for some it feels cathartic to lash out against groups that resemble their oppressors. Hurt people want to hurt others. As long as we perpetuate the cycle the same mistakes will keep repeating. But it's also important to remember that anyone can be an oppressor. Peter Thiel is gay and leading the world into technofascism. Look up a list of the world's richest person and yes, there's a lot of white dude at the very top but if you scroll down a little bit you'll find find Jensen Huang, Carlos Slim, and tons more non-white people. The women of the Walton and Koch families.
  Progressives keep asking why they are losing elections, why so many young men are falling into incel or alpha male culture. There's a lot of complicated reasons for that, but shit like this certainly isn't helping.
  It's especially disheartening to look through the profiles of some people here who are arguing in favor of this sexism. Because most of the people here I agree with 99% of what they post and comment.
  Imagine this was a microagression about any other identity group. Imagine some asshole joking about how Asians are bad drivers to a Chinese person. Imagine that Chinese person gets offended, and you tell them "it's really hard for me to take you seriously".
  I don't have any emotional trauma about this. I was raised exposed to a certain amount of toxic masculinity, and as I grew older and strive to become a better person I had to un-learn some bad habits. I didn't just memorize what words were offensive or not, but gave a lot of thought and educated myself into WHY they were offensive. The word "mansplaining" alone is mild, but what it's doing is singling put a specific identity group, then generally associating a negative connotation to the whole group. It's offensive, it's bad, and it should not be perpetuated.
  
  I think the real point here is that this is the thing you have chosen tofocusing on. You have had so little unfairness in your life that you feel the need to fixate on men being minorly teased.
  If you really want fairness, maybe you should focus on the things that are massively unfair first.
  Or do you only want fairness for white men?
  
  Lol you have no idea what I focus on. You're just reaching for a personal attack. Also it's weird that you specify "white" men when I purposefully have not, because as far as I can tell there's no racial component to the word "mansplaining". Are you assuming that I'm white for some reason? I'm not sure if I'm white or not - kinda depends on who you ask.
  Bigoted thinking is bigoted thinking, and I call it out when I see it. It's fundamentally flawed. It's bad science and bad statistics and leads to incorrect conclusions. It's the same kind of thinking that eventually leads to bigger things. You cannot in good faith argue for fairness while allowing unfairness based on some arbitrary scale. You seem awfully comfortable turning a blind eye to prejudice when it doesn't impact you.
  You're engaging in stereotypes, and stereotypes are harmful. Even positive ones, like the idea that Asians are good at math or women are nurturing.
  The inequality people have suffered from bigotry throughout human history is horrible, but that does not justify bigotry against people who resemble old bigots.
  You can say "minority teased", but the modern word is "micro aggression".
  It's pretty damning that most of the arguments you're using here to justify the word are the same ones racist use to justify using the 'N' word, or any other bugot uses to justify their bigoted language.
  
  So what do you focus on then?
  I mean, in addition to microaggressions against the least impact among us.
  
  I focus on bigoted thinking.
  Who are you to judge which groups are the most or least impacted by anything?
  If someone supports trans rights but hates black people I'll call them a bigot. If you support women's rights but hate men I'll call you a bigot. This isn't a quantitative evaluation. Bigotry is bigotry. It costs you nothing to stop using sexist language, whether that's sexist against women or men.
The problem is when people assume you're mansplaining just because you're a man explaining something.