You know, I kind of think mansplaining is maybe a bit of a misunderstood discussion device used for reaching consensus on something, and originates from kind of men conversing with other men, so I’d say yes.
What I mean, is that one thing I do as an engineer with other engineers when working on a project, is to start explaining something I know full well a colleague already mostly knows, as a starting point to talk them logically through a discussion. I will start with something like, “You know how capacitance is defined in terms of two parallel plates by the formula…, and we are looking for a way to measure the distance between our laser nozzle and the sheet of steel? Well, we know the area for the laser nozzle, and the sheet isn’t changing, so if we apply a charge to the nozzle and ground out the sheet, we ought to be able to “sense” the distance between the nozzle and the sheet using electricity and some circuitry”
The coworker follows the steps, each one mansplained in enough detail so that my knowledgeable colleague will be able to follow my internal logic even if I make some minor leaps here and there. Then, he will start to explain things he knows I know back to me to ensure that we are indeed both 100% understanding the idea on the same page, and might say, “but what about the cases when the nozzle is hanging halfway off the sheet of material? Wouldn’t we be out of luck?” And then we might go back and forth like this with me explaining the mechanism by which I think that would not be a problem, and then him explaining some other concern, and by the end of it, we have reached a consensus, and are fairly confident that each knows what the other was saying good enough for us both to work on our separate parts of the project(in the example here this was actually something someone else worked out, that I used as an example)
The reason it gets labeled as “mansplaining” and given a negative connotation as condescending and insulting the intelligence of the other person, in many cases stems from misunderstanding. For the person doing the mansplaining in many cases, they are actually saying in their subtext that “I know you already know much of this, and I value your opinions on the topic enough to invite you to this civil discourse, as I would like to work on solving this problem together with you or discussing this topic with you, so I am presenting you with my understanding and knowledge of the topic in expanded form. Please take in what I am saying and comment on any areas of what I have explained that you think might be in error or you think I may be looking at the wrong way, and I think we will come up with something great!”
What gets heard though is “I think you are so obviously dumb that you could not possibly understand any of this, so I am going to subject you to a lengthy discourse on something from the assumption you do not know anything on the topic at all, as a method of establishing my haughty superiority.”
I mean, maybe not always the case, and sometimes condescension is intended, but my take on it is as I stated above for the majority of such occurrences. Anyway, feel free to point out any holes in my logic here, but that is my feeling on the matter for now, until someone compels my mind to be changed on the topic.
@smerk85 To me, what you’ve described is two people working through a problem together; it’s a collaborative process. Mansplaining has the elements of condescension and superiority. The best example I’ve come across is a man explaining a subject to the woman who was an expert in and wrote the book on said subject and doing it as though she knew nothing and he was the expert.
@lisagd@smerk85 Possibly the most egregious example of which occurred at a meeting down at JSC NASA in which a mansplainer on a rant asked a female colleague who the hell she thought she was, and named the author of the book that he was claiming to be an expert on. To his chagrin, she pointed at her JSC security badge. She was the author of the book.
@smerk85@Yoda_Daenerys Perfect image.
I don’t care WHAT you’re saying, if it takes that many words to say it, you’d better be giving me a certificate or something for having to pay attention to it all.
The reason it gets labeled as “mansplaining” and given a negative connotation as condescending and insulting the intelligence of the other person, in many cases stems from misunderstanding. For the person doing the mansplaining in many cases, they are actually saying in their subtext that “I know you already know much of this, and I value your opinions on the topic enough to invite you to this civil discourse, as I would like to work on solving this problem together with you or discussing this topic with you, so I am presenting you with my understanding and knowledge of the topic in expanded form. Please take in what I am saying and comment on any areas of what I have explained that you think might be in error or you think I may be looking at the wrong way, and I think we will come up with something great!”
If only I could copy and paste IRL, I’d Ctrl+V this down before so many times I launch into something.
@Fourhundred57 The problem, of course, is that far too much of the time, the 'splaining is done in part to try to shut down any outside contributions. It’s a hyperverbose “BTDT, know everything worthwhile, STFU and do what I say.” It would be much more useful if it really was what is described in the quote above, but the common experience does not encourage much hope of that.
Have you lost your keys again?
@Barney hey there!
i might need to explain something to you about losing your keys. i have so much experience in this area.
finding keys, that’s a whole 'nother topic.
Yes, yes, and “mostly attitude”, in order, in my opinion. Sort it out as you wish. I only know how it looks to me.
Can mansplain REALLY be splained?
@mammy87 Ad infinitum, ad nauseum, to no useful effect.
@mammy87 oh, let me tell you…
Isn’t the definition of man’splain (Lucy, 'splain!) to offer an explanation where none is needed? (e.g. answering a rhetorical question)
@pakopako There are So. Many. Shades. of this phenomenon, that’s just one of many!
The stronger of the testosterone is the 'splainer
@show_the_maw though with age some may get ED: Explainer Dysfunction
/giphy la la la la
You know, I kind of think mansplaining is maybe a bit of a misunderstood discussion device used for reaching consensus on something, and originates from kind of men conversing with other men, so I’d say yes.
What I mean, is that one thing I do as an engineer with other engineers when working on a project, is to start explaining something I know full well a colleague already mostly knows, as a starting point to talk them logically through a discussion. I will start with something like, “You know how capacitance is defined in terms of two parallel plates by the formula…, and we are looking for a way to measure the distance between our laser nozzle and the sheet of steel? Well, we know the area for the laser nozzle, and the sheet isn’t changing, so if we apply a charge to the nozzle and ground out the sheet, we ought to be able to “sense” the distance between the nozzle and the sheet using electricity and some circuitry”
The coworker follows the steps, each one mansplained in enough detail so that my knowledgeable colleague will be able to follow my internal logic even if I make some minor leaps here and there. Then, he will start to explain things he knows I know back to me to ensure that we are indeed both 100% understanding the idea on the same page, and might say, “but what about the cases when the nozzle is hanging halfway off the sheet of material? Wouldn’t we be out of luck?” And then we might go back and forth like this with me explaining the mechanism by which I think that would not be a problem, and then him explaining some other concern, and by the end of it, we have reached a consensus, and are fairly confident that each knows what the other was saying good enough for us both to work on our separate parts of the project(in the example here this was actually something someone else worked out, that I used as an example)
The reason it gets labeled as “mansplaining” and given a negative connotation as condescending and insulting the intelligence of the other person, in many cases stems from misunderstanding. For the person doing the mansplaining in many cases, they are actually saying in their subtext that “I know you already know much of this, and I value your opinions on the topic enough to invite you to this civil discourse, as I would like to work on solving this problem together with you or discussing this topic with you, so I am presenting you with my understanding and knowledge of the topic in expanded form. Please take in what I am saying and comment on any areas of what I have explained that you think might be in error or you think I may be looking at the wrong way, and I think we will come up with something great!”
What gets heard though is “I think you are so obviously dumb that you could not possibly understand any of this, so I am going to subject you to a lengthy discourse on something from the assumption you do not know anything on the topic at all, as a method of establishing my haughty superiority.”
I mean, maybe not always the case, and sometimes condescension is intended, but my take on it is as I stated above for the majority of such occurrences. Anyway, feel free to point out any holes in my logic here, but that is my feeling on the matter for now, until someone compels my mind to be changed on the topic.
@smerk85 To me, what you’ve described is two people working through a problem together; it’s a collaborative process. Mansplaining has the elements of condescension and superiority. The best example I’ve come across is a man explaining a subject to the woman who was an expert in and wrote the book on said subject and doing it as though she knew nothing and he was the expert.
@lisagd @smerk85 Possibly the most egregious example of which occurred at a meeting down at JSC NASA in which a mansplainer on a rant asked a female colleague who the hell she thought she was, and named the author of the book that he was claiming to be an expert on. To his chagrin, she pointed at her JSC security badge. She was the author of the book.
@smerk85 @werehatrack I love it! (Mansplainer gets knocked down a peg or three) I hate it! (Mansplainer feels entitled to mansplain)
@smerk85
where to find the tl:dr on that
/image wall of text
promise, I’ll come back and read it later…
@smerk85 @Yoda_Daenerys Perfect image.
I don’t care WHAT you’re saying, if it takes that many words to say it, you’d better be giving me a certificate or something for having to pay attention to it all.
@Kyeh @Yoda_Daenerys
If only I could copy and paste IRL, I’d Ctrl+V this down before so many times I launch into something.
@Fourhundred57 The problem, of course, is that far too much of the time, the 'splaining is done in part to try to shut down any outside contributions. It’s a hyperverbose “BTDT, know everything worthwhile, STFU and do what I say.” It would be much more useful if it really was what is described in the quote above, but the common experience does not encourage much hope of that.
@werehatrack what is btdt?
/image btdt
@Yoda_Daenerys Been There, Done That
Men Explain Things to Me
BY REBECCA SOLNIT
The original essay, within this article:
https://tomdispatch.com/best-of-tomdispatch-rebecca-solnit-the-archipelago-of-arrogance/
@Kyeh more words than i can typically consume in one sitting, but very insightful. thx for sharing the link.
/youtube mansplain