This makes me wonder if I've been offensive when I've Marynsplained something to someone who clearly isn't comprehending what the speaker is trying to tell them. Showin' my Marynprivilege and all...
Help to avoid mansplaining
- Thread starter Laer Carroll
- Start date
- Status
I think we need to draw the line between clarification and mansplaining. If Random Dudebro restates your exact point in your exact field as though it's their own, new take, then that's mansplaining - it's condescending.
If Neil deGrasse Tyson corrects your ideas on the event horizon of a black hole and the gravity well it causes because you're a 3rd year TA and wrong, then you say thank you.
If Neil deGrasse Tyson corrects your ideas on the event horizon of a black hole and the gravity well it causes because you're a 3rd year TA and wrong, then you say thank you.
There is always going to be someone who knows more about any topic, regardless of their gender. Maybe a better wording to "because he believes he knows more about it simply because he's a man" could have been something like "because he believes a woman's understanding is by nature inferior". Yeah, maybe so.
Yep. That's quite accurate. I used to bristle at the way this went on in my house when I was a kid. This is how I came to see women as the superiors of our species.
In a similar vein, I would say it's also not mansplaining if you're merely forwarding the arguments from someone who does know. Although, I think you have to be careful to make it clear that that's what you're doing. And maybe framing your comments in such a way that you're not saying 'no, you're wrong', but more like, 'expert x says this other thing, why do you disagree?'.
I'm just going to leave this here; it's well worth reading.
Panel moderator mansplains physics to an actual physicist. This audience member couldn't take it anymore.
Panel moderator mansplains physics to an actual physicist. This audience member couldn't take it anymore.
That was a strong, clear example of the issue and those types of examples are necessary, I think, for establishing an understanding of exactly what we're meaning when we talk about mansplaining. We've also seen examples around the web of men explaining articles, poems, and books to the women who wrote them. It's important to note, too, that women experience this as a near-daily occurence on matters large and small including having a man look into her grocery cart, ask what she's making, then proceed to tell her how to make it. (Yep, that's happened more than once.)
Regardless of the reasons behind the behavior, I find it odd behavior. Very odd.
Regardless of the reasons behind the behavior, I find it odd behavior. Very odd.
Last edited:
In one of the links AW Admin gave in the first post to this thread the writer pointed out that MANsplaining is just one kind of a larger illness: the privileged talking down to the underprivileged.
I don't find it odd. It's all part of being privileged. It suppresses the underprivileged and at the same time affirms the rights of the privileged. It puts down and pushes up. Entirely natural, the way cancer is "natural."
So far there's been much discussion of WHAT splaining is. But little of HOW to avoid it.
I suspect all of us are guilty of it occasionally. I'm sure I am, and don't even know it. So maybe the first step for those of us who care to do better is just to be aware splaining exists. Then to try to be more aware of who we are talking to.
Maybe there are some symptoms, some ways of speaking, which signal when splaining is happening. Then we can re-write our posts, re-think our speech, before we put it into the world.
Help?
I googled "how not to mansplain" and got quite a list from Google. A quick scan shows some articles may be more helpful than others; this one "Hey Bros, Here’s 6 Tips To Avoid Mansplaining" has a few good tips.
Some approaches I think might be helpful?
- Ask "why do I want to participate in this conversation?" If it's to give yourself a chance to expound on your own knowledge, stop right there. You're already halfway down the path. BUT, if you find the discussion interesting, want to know more, and believe you have something to contribute; then,
- Listen (or read). Assess the knowledge level of your audience and make no assumptions of knowledge based on gender; then,
- Ask questions to further clarify knowledge levels. Heck, ask questions, anyway. Be curious. Commit to being a life-long learner.
- Never, never use phrases like "You wouldn't understand" or "This is probably above your head . . ." (Also, watch your tone; one's tone can convey a wealth of meaning.)
Now, again, this is my opinion and I think anyone who does this more easily finds their footing in a conversation (in meatspace or online) and can contribute their knowledge in ways that are appreciated.
Last edited:
Zuluz
Registered
Tazlima; Lol said:.
Before joining AW just a day ago, I had never even heard those terms--although I know I'm guilty of the first from time to time. But I'm guilty with a twist (maybe). If I think I know something about something, almost to a fault, I conclude with something like, "I could be wrong, though," or "...but you probably know more about that than I do." I'll end with that even if I have no clue whether the person knows anything about the particular subject at hand. You'd have to know me personally to know how true that is and how sincere I am when I say it.
So, I'm I truly guilty of mansplaining or have I found a work-around?
(sorry, I didn't capture the quote correctly)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,122
- Reaction score
- 10,882
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I don't think anyone is saying that it's "whatever" splaining to disagree with someone or to explain why. It's a matter of tone and context.
The problem with the term is that it can put people on the defensive. My husband, who really isn't a sexist guy at all, hates the term because he feels like it's sometimes used to end conversations and that expressing an opinion about anything related to sexism or a woman's work or experience is unacceptable for men. I don't see it that way, and he agrees that some of the examples out there, like the one in the book, "Men Explain Things to Me," where a man at a party lectured a female author at length about an "important book in her field that she must read" when she herself had written said book (and which the man hadn't actually even read) are pretty egregious.
Or this one, where a male author on CNN tells a woman that "he knows more about what women like than women do" re street harassment/catcalling.
I don't know what to think sometimes. The term seems harmless enough to me, a useful meme that humorously encapsulates something most women (and other people too) experience all too often, but if it puts men on the defensive and makes them think we want to shut them down, then it's not making things better.
Hmm, I think the line is crossed in posts here on AW when a post reads more like a blog post or treatise than a question or the brainstorming of a story idea. Even when it's not an issue related to gender or identity, there's a certain line that feels crossed when a post reads as if someone is setting themselves up as some kind of guru, workshop leader, or instructor, rather than a fellow member who has an idea they want feedback on, or who is unclear about something.
Not that posts expressing strong opinions are bad, necessarily, but there's still a difference between stating it as an opinion, even a supported one, in a way that makes it clear it's just that and that one is open to other views and hoping to learn from them (versus seeking to "educate" everyone else about the issue).
That was what made me a bit uncomfortable with your post about the future of gender roles in the SFF section. If you'd worded it more like, "I'm writing a story with this underlying premise re future gender roles. Does this feel plausible to you guys?" It would have had a different tone entirely. For me, at least (I can't speak for the admins or other members here, of course).
This is just my two cents worth, of course. I can fall into being too lecture-ey too. I'm very used to being the only biologist in the room, for instance, in settings that aren't geared towards biologists. So I've sometimes been caught out over explaining something biological to someone who also has background in the life sciences. Likewise, I've had people do it to me (someone once told me I "needed to learn what convergent evolution was," for instance, in a thread where the plausibility of humanoid aliens came up in "hard" SF. That was a "sigh" moment.
I don't think it's always about gender, and it probably wasn't in that case (I don't even know if the person "lecturing" me about convergent evolution was male).
The problem with the term is that it can put people on the defensive. My husband, who really isn't a sexist guy at all, hates the term because he feels like it's sometimes used to end conversations and that expressing an opinion about anything related to sexism or a woman's work or experience is unacceptable for men. I don't see it that way, and he agrees that some of the examples out there, like the one in the book, "Men Explain Things to Me," where a man at a party lectured a female author at length about an "important book in her field that she must read" when she herself had written said book (and which the man hadn't actually even read) are pretty egregious.
Or this one, where a male author on CNN tells a woman that "he knows more about what women like than women do" re street harassment/catcalling.
I don't know what to think sometimes. The term seems harmless enough to me, a useful meme that humorously encapsulates something most women (and other people too) experience all too often, but if it puts men on the defensive and makes them think we want to shut them down, then it's not making things better.
Hmm, I think the line is crossed in posts here on AW when a post reads more like a blog post or treatise than a question or the brainstorming of a story idea. Even when it's not an issue related to gender or identity, there's a certain line that feels crossed when a post reads as if someone is setting themselves up as some kind of guru, workshop leader, or instructor, rather than a fellow member who has an idea they want feedback on, or who is unclear about something.
Not that posts expressing strong opinions are bad, necessarily, but there's still a difference between stating it as an opinion, even a supported one, in a way that makes it clear it's just that and that one is open to other views and hoping to learn from them (versus seeking to "educate" everyone else about the issue).
That was what made me a bit uncomfortable with your post about the future of gender roles in the SFF section. If you'd worded it more like, "I'm writing a story with this underlying premise re future gender roles. Does this feel plausible to you guys?" It would have had a different tone entirely. For me, at least (I can't speak for the admins or other members here, of course).
This is just my two cents worth, of course. I can fall into being too lecture-ey too. I'm very used to being the only biologist in the room, for instance, in settings that aren't geared towards biologists. So I've sometimes been caught out over explaining something biological to someone who also has background in the life sciences. Likewise, I've had people do it to me (someone once told me I "needed to learn what convergent evolution was," for instance, in a thread where the plausibility of humanoid aliens came up in "hard" SF. That was a "sigh" moment.
I don't think it's always about gender, and it probably wasn't in that case (I don't even know if the person "lecturing" me about convergent evolution was male).
Last edited:
heh. I have no answer for ya. Self-deprecation (or the appearance of it) is something I and many other women actively work to overcome.Tazlima; Lol said:.
Before joining AW just a day ago, I had never even heard those terms--although I know I'm guilty of the first from time to time. But I'm guilty with a twist (maybe). If I think I know something about something, almost to a fault, I conclude with something like, "I could be wrong, though," or "...but you probably know more about that than I do." I'll end with that even if I have no clue whether the person knows anything about the particular subject at hand. You'd have to know me personally to know how true that is and how sincere I am when I say it.
So, I'm I truly guilty of mansplaining or have I found a work-around?
(sorry, I didn't capture the quote correctly)
I, personally, find it an attractive trait in a man if it's sincere wrt certain topics; if it's disingenuous . . . well, not so much.
Zuluz
Registered
Roxxsmom and Ari Meermans,
Interesting topic. I have to admit that it's something that I had never thought about in any formal way, but I know it when I see it. Just didn't know it when I did it. Didn't know there was a name for it. Fortunately, I probably wouldn't be the first person to come to mind, amongst my friends, were there to be a discussion about who's guilty of mansplaining. Some of the examples put forth in this tread would be way beyond my comfort zone. The upshot, I'm glad I stumbled upon this. Having been educated on the subject, I can get rid of the "from time to time" that I mentioned.
Interesting topic. I have to admit that it's something that I had never thought about in any formal way, but I know it when I see it. Just didn't know it when I did it. Didn't know there was a name for it. Fortunately, I probably wouldn't be the first person to come to mind, amongst my friends, were there to be a discussion about who's guilty of mansplaining. Some of the examples put forth in this tread would be way beyond my comfort zone. The upshot, I'm glad I stumbled upon this. Having been educated on the subject, I can get rid of the "from time to time" that I mentioned.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 11,751
- Reaction score
- 12,199
- Location
- Atherton Tablelands
- Website
- snailseyeview.medium.com
Well, cancer is the result of cellular malfunctions of all kinds. So your analogy would be that mansplaining is the result of social malfunctions, yes?
Surely the next step would be for those who mansplain is to make an effort to find out for themselves how not to manspalin.
I would hope that being more aware of who we are talking to is a basic minimum for any conversation.
If only there was some great repository of knowledge we could connect to with a click of the mouse.
There is a fairly simple two step process to avoid 'splaining.
Step one - Shut up.
Step two - Listen.
If you are thinking about what you are going to say when the other person stops talking, you aren't listening. Go back to step one and start over.
Okay. So, today on Twitter I saw a thing related to a tweet the MLB made. (Photo of one of the super-plush baseball stadiums and #Goals.) And a woman responded with "i think you mean #runs", which was obviously a joke *and* a dig at mansplainers. To which a man then responded explaining to her that the #goals hashtag had been referring to the stadium as a kind of "lifegoal" that other stadiums should achieve, and also that she must be really stupid not to understand that.
So, if one were trying to avoid mansplaining, one might consider what factors would cause a man to ignore the obvious joke in order to "correct" a woman who is a stranger and call her stupid. It could be that he doesn't like the fact that she made a joke he wanted to make before he made it. It could be that he's upset because a woman knows something about a thing he has always thought was "his" domain (in this case baseball or sports). It could be he's an asshat and just wants to try and make someone look stupid.
But perhaps, if one is hoping to avoid being seen as a mansplainer, one could note when one has an instinct to jump into a conversation or lecture or article between/given by/written by a woman and tell her where she's "wrong". What underlying assumptions does one have? That she couldn't be making a joke because that requires intelligence? Or jealousy because she beat one to the punch? Or irritation that she actually knows something about this thing that you always thought you had insight on? That she is talking about this thing that one knows about but is talking about things within that thing that one doesn't know about?
Because mansplaining is more than just some chauvanistic attempt to be "helpful", it is an attempt to silence women and belittle their experience by not only saying that one knows more, but that even the woman in question doesn't understand what she's saying. Figuring out where that jealousy flares up will help one figure out how to "fix" it.
So, if one were trying to avoid mansplaining, one might consider what factors would cause a man to ignore the obvious joke in order to "correct" a woman who is a stranger and call her stupid. It could be that he doesn't like the fact that she made a joke he wanted to make before he made it. It could be that he's upset because a woman knows something about a thing he has always thought was "his" domain (in this case baseball or sports). It could be he's an asshat and just wants to try and make someone look stupid.
But perhaps, if one is hoping to avoid being seen as a mansplainer, one could note when one has an instinct to jump into a conversation or lecture or article between/given by/written by a woman and tell her where she's "wrong". What underlying assumptions does one have? That she couldn't be making a joke because that requires intelligence? Or jealousy because she beat one to the punch? Or irritation that she actually knows something about this thing that you always thought you had insight on? That she is talking about this thing that one knows about but is talking about things within that thing that one doesn't know about?
Because mansplaining is more than just some chauvanistic attempt to be "helpful", it is an attempt to silence women and belittle their experience by not only saying that one knows more, but that even the woman in question doesn't understand what she's saying. Figuring out where that jealousy flares up will help one figure out how to "fix" it.
Wait, the dude fell for the straightman role. Job is done. The joke isn't as funny without the person falling into the straightman role. With the joke hanging without the straightman, it might illicit a couple laughs but then it disappears because it goes nowhere.
Kersplaining is a power move. If what you view as writing as potentially gaining more power over your readers, you might have a problem. Essays and treatises tend to have these issues. Unfortunately, a lot of writing assignments in school demand you to adopt these formats, largely because education assumes that one day you might be an authority. Questions with admission that you don't know the answer sometimes have a tendency to get people to respond with a little joy because hey, they might help. Always asking questions and never providing any help is another problem.
The idea of an inveterate mansplainer asking women to show him how not to mansplain is one of the more absurd propositions I've heard.
Scene: lecture hall
Mansplainer: Hi, don't mind me interrupting. I'd like to tell you a few interesting things about your subject but if you think I'm mansplaining would you raise your hand and wiggle it about a bit? Thanks so much.
Women physics lecturer: Why might you feel the need to explain anything to me when I'm the one giving the lecture?
Mansplainer: Well, when I walk into a lecture hall, I assume I'm more knowledgeable on any given topic than everyone else present. Well, not everyone else, but more than women, perhaps.
Woman physics lecturer: Well, if you dropped that assumption you might learn something?
Mansplainer: Ah yes, but I need HELP to get over myself. You can't expect me to do all the work here, I'd like you to do your bit. Show me how to avoid it, let me know when I'm doing it. It's all about me, you see. You don't want me to get defensive do you? Help me deal with this. First let me tell you why mansplaining is so hard for me to overcome --
ETC etc etc
Did you just try and explain to me how humor works? And then excuse dude's behavior because he was inadvertently stepping into the "straight man role"? In a thread about mansplaining?
Did I excuse his behaviour? Nah, the dude put himself in a worse position until he gets out of his power move. When he's still in the power move, he's still the butt of the joke.
Closing thread. Helpful advice has been given and if received, great. If not . . .
I do recommend reading the sticky for this room to all before posting.
Thanks.
I do recommend reading the sticky for this room to all before posting.
Thanks.
- Status