You use the phrase "more often than not" without any evidence, and I think you're wrong about that. If you really think it's not a thing that men launch into explanations just assuming they know more about the topic at hand than the woman they're talking to, just because they're men, I don't think you're paying attention.
I'm going to pretend I didn't read that as totally passive-aggressive and just say I was trying to be diplomatic by giving some people the benefit of the doubt. Let's put it this way: from my own personal experience, someone accusing someone else of "mansplaining" has, without fail, been an ad hominem attack designed to prohibit them from talking about an issue any further simply because they are a man and might possibly not have enough information. And in many cases, they do.
gobobbygo wrote:What Zakharov was saying to Vanya was not "your argument is invalid because you have [negative quality]," he was saying "you made an unsupported assertion of fact, and the manner in which you did so aligns nicely with this cultural phenomenon that we now have a name for."
Careful, your confirmation bias is showing!
gobobbygo wrote: And I don't think it's an ad hominem attack, either. What Zakharov was saying to Vanya was not "your argument is invalid because you have [negative quality]," he was saying "you made an unsupported assertion of fact, and the manner in which you did so aligns nicely with this cultural phenomenon that we now have a name for." In other words, not "you're making a bad argument because you're a man," but rather "You're making a bad argument. The bad argument you're making, and the manner in which you're making it, fits quite well with what we now call 'mansplaining.'"
Wow, breaking news: people say stupid/ignorant/prejudiced things! It's so remarkable that we have to make up a sexist label for it!
Dr. J wrote:The term may not be to your liking, but the problem is real.
If "mansplaining" is a real problem, so is a hypothetical equivalent, "womansplaining." I usually don't enter my own anecdotes into debates like these, but since you did earlier in the post I quoted, I feel like it may be appropriate here. I'm a junior at a very progressive high school who has its own diversity council, "affinity groups," and feminism club. We're even trying to field Ahmed Mohamed, the faux clock kid, to attend the school. There is a showing of the film The Mask You Live In
coming up and parents are encouraged to attend. I haven't seen the film, but from what I can tell, it is a bunch of "sociologists," mainly women, trying to redefine and reshape masculinity, as if they know where to begin. I was told several years ago that I likely had "ADHD" because I was displaying the rambunctious characteristics of a completely normal preteen male. I have been stigmatized as a "creep" and stalker because I hung out with girls an inordinate amount and talked with them a lot; the real reason because I was still in the closet and needed people to confide in. I have been called a "chauvinist" because I dared question the validity of "rape culture." I have been told I don't understand oppression because of my gender. Yet, out of all this, I still don't generalize and prescribe "-splaining" to a group of people within a gender, even though I have just as much ammunition as, say, you do, to do so.
(But wouldn't it be funny if some of you guys chimed in to explain it further to me...
This is precisely the problem. You are suggesting that I should be seen as hypocritical if I have a difference of opinion on what "mansplaining" is.