Testeverything521 | Mansplaining - is it sexist? @Testeverything521 | Uploaded 7 years ago | Updated 13 hours ago
Dictionary definition: “A man explaining something, particular to a woman, in a manner regarded as patronizing or condescending.”
I agree mansplaining is a real and negative thing. Men do often talk down to women, sometimes without even realizing it.
I actually identify as a type of feminist. I’m a humanist because I believe all people have value. And I’m a feminist because I believe women are particularly discriminated against and deserve to be treated as equals. For these reasons, I am against the use of the term mansplaining. I think it is inconsistent with the type of feminism I just described. There are two primary reasons I think the term undermines those values.
First one:
To take a stereotypical negative behavior and label it after a specific gender is to create a sexist term. Think about negative traits that end up including female within the title. Two that come to my mind are “woman drivers” and “bridezilla”. All genders can be bad drivers. If you wish to insult bad driving, and you do so by disparagingly referring to someone as a “woman driver”, then you are both perpetuating a negative stereotype and linking that with a gender. A person’s gender should not be tied together with an insult or negative trait. It is entirely possible to combat sexism without embracing inherently sexist terminology. Using sexist terminology while trying to combat sexism seems to allow opponents of feminism to point out this hypocritical double standard and have the appearance of taking the moral high ground. It is very poor word choice and an ineffective way to point out the problem.
That brings me to the second and more significant point:
Even if we ignore that the term itself seems to be sexist in name, there is another way in which the term mansplaining becomes unmistakably sexist in usage. Mansplaining conveys a stereotype. Even though I think this negative stereotype is actually true, stereotypes are inherently problematic in a way that will influences how this term is used.
Stereotypes, even the ones you don’t believe, prime you to see the world a certain way. If culture keeps telling me women are bossy, even if I believe culture is wrong, being aware of the stereotype will make you more aware of when a woman is acting in a way that could possibly be labeled bossy. When a man acts bossy, you will find some excuse as to explain why it is a coincidence or isn’t representative of his entire gender. In the absence of the stereotype, you would have done the same for a woman. Because you are aware of the stereotype, your brain will remember and make note of when a woman acts in a bossy way and it will appear as evidence to confirm the stereotype. Stereotypes are self-fulfilling in this way. BUT HERE IS WHERE IT GETS PROBLEMATIC. The result of this internalized expectation is that it primes you to see the world through the lens of this stereotype. If the stereotype says that women are bossy, then just being aware of this stereotype can bias us. The bias makes it so that and actions which would normally be called confident or passionate becomes mislabeled as bossy or crazy. Our brains set out to make the world conform to meet the stereotypical internalized expectations.. It soon ceases to matter whether or not the individual actually conforms to the negative stereotype or not, because our biased brains will convince us it does either way.
Mansplaining is just one particular example of a negative stereotype. When you prime people to expect man to explain things in patronizing and condescending ways, that will become a stereotypical internalized expectation. Soon any explanation performed by men, whether patronizing and condescending or not will be mislabeled as mansplaining. Even this video, although not patronizing or condescending, could and likely will be mislabeled as mansplaining simply because a man was doing the talking at the beginning. When the word mansplaining is used to shut down any explanation simply because it comes from men, mansplaining becomes unmistakably sexist. To test whether or not this happens, just check the comments section. Those who are not likely to have watched this far into the video are the same ones likely to call this video mansplaining simply because the thumbnail has a picture of a man.
The proliferation of negative stereotypes is the enemy.
It is an enemy of humanism, which makes it an enemy of feminism.
As always, test everything, hold on to the good.
Dictionary definition: “A man explaining something, particular to a woman, in a manner regarded as patronizing or condescending.”
I agree mansplaining is a real and negative thing. Men do often talk down to women, sometimes without even realizing it.
I actually identify as a type of feminist. I’m a humanist because I believe all people have value. And I’m a feminist because I believe women are particularly discriminated against and deserve to be treated as equals. For these reasons, I am against the use of the term mansplaining. I think it is inconsistent with the type of feminism I just described. There are two primary reasons I think the term undermines those values.
First one:
To take a stereotypical negative behavior and label it after a specific gender is to create a sexist term. Think about negative traits that end up including female within the title. Two that come to my mind are “woman drivers” and “bridezilla”. All genders can be bad drivers. If you wish to insult bad driving, and you do so by disparagingly referring to someone as a “woman driver”, then you are both perpetuating a negative stereotype and linking that with a gender. A person’s gender should not be tied together with an insult or negative trait. It is entirely possible to combat sexism without embracing inherently sexist terminology. Using sexist terminology while trying to combat sexism seems to allow opponents of feminism to point out this hypocritical double standard and have the appearance of taking the moral high ground. It is very poor word choice and an ineffective way to point out the problem.
That brings me to the second and more significant point:
Even if we ignore that the term itself seems to be sexist in name, there is another way in which the term mansplaining becomes unmistakably sexist in usage. Mansplaining conveys a stereotype. Even though I think this negative stereotype is actually true, stereotypes are inherently problematic in a way that will influences how this term is used.
Stereotypes, even the ones you don’t believe, prime you to see the world a certain way. If culture keeps telling me women are bossy, even if I believe culture is wrong, being aware of the stereotype will make you more aware of when a woman is acting in a way that could possibly be labeled bossy. When a man acts bossy, you will find some excuse as to explain why it is a coincidence or isn’t representative of his entire gender. In the absence of the stereotype, you would have done the same for a woman. Because you are aware of the stereotype, your brain will remember and make note of when a woman acts in a bossy way and it will appear as evidence to confirm the stereotype. Stereotypes are self-fulfilling in this way. BUT HERE IS WHERE IT GETS PROBLEMATIC. The result of this internalized expectation is that it primes you to see the world through the lens of this stereotype. If the stereotype says that women are bossy, then just being aware of this stereotype can bias us. The bias makes it so that and actions which would normally be called confident or passionate becomes mislabeled as bossy or crazy. Our brains set out to make the world conform to meet the stereotypical internalized expectations.. It soon ceases to matter whether or not the individual actually conforms to the negative stereotype or not, because our biased brains will convince us it does either way.
Mansplaining is just one particular example of a negative stereotype. When you prime people to expect man to explain things in patronizing and condescending ways, that will become a stereotypical internalized expectation. Soon any explanation performed by men, whether patronizing and condescending or not will be mislabeled as mansplaining. Even this video, although not patronizing or condescending, could and likely will be mislabeled as mansplaining simply because a man was doing the talking at the beginning. When the word mansplaining is used to shut down any explanation simply because it comes from men, mansplaining becomes unmistakably sexist. To test whether or not this happens, just check the comments section. Those who are not likely to have watched this far into the video are the same ones likely to call this video mansplaining simply because the thumbnail has a picture of a man.
The proliferation of negative stereotypes is the enemy.
It is an enemy of humanism, which makes it an enemy of feminism.
As always, test everything, hold on to the good.
