Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Wallace Baine: A man explains 'mansplaining'
Submitted by Mastodon on Sun, 2014-07-27 01:59
Article here. Excerpt:
'Mansplaining is a habit — maybe even a vice — that I've engaged in for years, talking with those closest to me using little packets of conversational density that can sound long-winded and lecture-y to anyone on the receiving end. I've always figured it was the journalist in me, that talking in AP inverted-pyramid was a charming occupational hazard. And besides, I'm just so goll-durned smart, it would selfish not to share that brilliance, right?
Turns out it's a guy thing, and people who live with guys are getting kind of tired of it. Once the term entered the cultural mainstream, I vowed to my wife that I was going to cut back on the mansplaining. I've said exactly nine words to her since June, five of them "OK."
...
Women, however, are not the only ones who have to put up with toxic mansplaining. Younger men and teenagers get it from older men all the time. In the new coming-of-age film "Boyhood," young Mason is getting chewed on constantly from stepdads and male teachers. I had the chance to interview Ellar Coltrane, the young actor playing Mason, and he said one of the few things he had in common with the character he played on screen was the experience of often having to tolerate some resentment-fueled when-I-was-your-age harangue from an older male authority figure.
Still, it's wives, girlfriends, daughters, dates and female subordinates on the job who are most often downwind to mansplaining, which by definition is freighted with the unspoken assumption, "I know more than you do."
...
OK, any given man may indeed know more than any given woman. But the opposite is true about half the time. Mansplaining is a vestige of a past when men did know more than women due solely to the privilege of education and experience, a privilege imposed by men.
So, have pity on the mansplainer. His is the merely the voice of a patriarchal world eclipsed by a new one ... wait, did that sound mansplainy?
Besides, it's probably the best strategy to just let the mansplainer dig his own grave (rhetorically speaking only). There is a cognitive phenomenon called the Illusion of Explanatory Depth, which reveals that we humans actually know a lot less than we think we do. We may assume we know, for example, how a toilet works or how Social Security is funded. But when asked to explain those things, we often get a few steps in before we realize that our knowledge is general, vague and based on sketchy assumptions — allow me to pause here to Google how a toilet works. Thus the mansplainer only needs to hear himself talk for a few minutes before he comes to the conclusion that he doesn't know what he claims to know. Then comes the humility that leads to a determination to listen, read, absorb and reflect more.
Oh, wait. We're talking about men here.
Yeah, never mind.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
It's OK though when women do it
I recall not long ago when feminists complained that neither men nor women seemed ready to accept that women could have and voice their own opinions about things. Now, it's not a problem for them, and so as it should be. Suddenly, some now believe if men have the temerity to do likewise, it's bad. The author himself 'mansplained' during his whole article. He, being male, assumed the reader needed to be schooled by him, a man, to have his/her limited knowledge broadened by his superior MALE intellect. He's GUILTY, therefore, of the very terrible offense he blathers about.
Speaking of which, here are some more INFAMOUS MANSPLAINERS who have used their MALE PRIVILEGE to pollute the air with their irrelevant prattlings about such idiotic topics as civil rights, science, life, morality (the worst!), etc.:
MLK, Jr.: Went on endlessly abt civil rights, blah, blah. We already knew abt it. He just wanted to hear his own voice, what with the whole 'I have a dream' nonsense. Typical man.
Isaac Newton: For a guy who didn't say much, he mansplained in writing like no one's business. He wrote a book on math that mansplained the fundamentals of what is today called "calculus". He assumed others were too stupid to get it for themselves. Forget that without calculus, much of modern life as we understand it wouldn't be possible. No cars, widespread electricity, huge sewage systems spanning 1,000s of miles of piping, etc. Newton. Typical blowhard mansplainer.
Siddharta Gautama: Yammering, mansplaining douche-bag. Who was this a$$, thinking he had some kind of new idea for. "The Middle Way"? And he goes around, preaching compassion and stuff, teaching meditation and so on. He does such a great job bamboozling others via MANSPLAINING that they fall for it and give him the title "Buddha". What a jerk!
Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, etc.: Ancient Greek mansplainers filling the air with privileged twaddling about the nature of reality, medicine, society, theology, etc. Know-it-all jerks, typical mansplainers wasting everyone else's time. Ugh.
Joshua bar Joseph (aka Jesus Christ), Abraham, Mohammed, Moses, King Soloman, Zoroaster, and that whole lot: Need I comment? Blither, blither, blither. Forgive, have mercy, avoid doing bad things to others, etc. Preachy dorks, to a man. They had no right, those MEN! Women, children, and other men didn't have any use for such twaddle. Sure, even w/out the theology, they yammered nonetheless about everything. Peh! Who needs 'em?!
The list goes on and on. Too many privileged, patriarchal downpressormen to list.
Men should say nothing. No opinions, ideas, etc. Stay quiet, men. No one wants to hear your prattle.
Ugh.
Remember this from the 1980s?: "Silence = Death". It was an HIV awareness slogan. I'd like to suggest the MRM appropriate it. Since indeed, it's true.
Well played, Sir!
That comment was perfect, Matt!
The comment I posted on the article was removed.
It seems to be happening a lot lately, and I'm not even that harsh with my words. I guess this is the "truth hurts" factor. That is, they remove my comments because they know that there's a lot of truth to them, and they don't want others to read them. I'm getting good at this. :)
The comment (paraphrased from the first comment):
-------------------
Translation: Don't you dare ever act like you know anything about anything in the presence of a woman! Just shut up and let her speak, even if she's about to make a mistake with disastrous consequences.
I'm sorry, but if you need to use a fake word to invalidate the opinion of an entire gender, you are not worth listening to. By the by, this whole article you have spoken to your reader like they're moronic, and in desperate need of your vital information. That is, you partake in the very action you are speaking out against. At least practice what you preach!
Love you man!
Matt,
Love you man! You got a way with words. Thanks for splaining.
Thanks
Heck, I try. Sometimes it's there, other times, not so much. :)
:)
Well really, how much more obvious can it be? Countering feminists' silliness is as easy as pointing out just plain facts. Really, too damned simple. But thanks for the compliment.