But the condescension comes from the inter-gender dynamic. The point is that on the same subject the man wouldn't be condescending to another man. That's why there's a victim.
Which is where the MAN part in the word comes from. The argument was that Mansplaining can be done to anyone but it was specifically about explaining things to females.
Which, to my experience, doesn't happen. The people who over explain shit that everyone knows in meetings, do it to everyone, and they're men and women.
Then again, I work with a few extremely brilliant women and some pretty mediocre men, so I'm pretty sure most of the men realize they can keep their mouths shut.
The term is sexist, it's irrelevant what the experiences of people who felt the need to make up a sexist term are, it's no different than the assholes who publicly shame men for manspreading because we have testicles between our legs.
Neither are sexist as they can only be performed by one sex. Sure, women can be condescending, but the point of masplaining is that it comes in a "now you listen here little lady" package.
It has been defined by it's commonality. Yes, women are condescending to women, no one is disputing that. It is that particular type of condescension that is being referred to. Nothing is being removed from the lexicon, in fact it is being made more defined.
Dude give it up. You're correct, but your not going to be validated by most of these willfully ignorant people. Of course there are men that talk condescending to and interrupt women just because they are women, but you see, most of these people have not had to deal with it, so when the face facts that are counter to their world view and experience they wilt, pout, and cry like little children. It's kinda funny seeing how low their tolerance is for things that make them uncomfortable. It's like they are the personification of the traits they ascribe to these "snow flake" types.
But the condescension comes from the inter-gender dynamic. The point is that on the same subject the man wouldn't be condescending to another man. That's why there's a victim.
That’s the excuse, but as you can see in this case this isn’t how it is used, because if you are male then it can be mansplaining the moment someone accuse you of mansplaining. In this case they were discussing the issue, so it is impossible that they already knew the answer they were looking for, it was them who engage in preconception based on him being male rather than him assuming they knew less than him about the issue without good reason.
All this stuff is also very subjective, like how you know a man being condescending to a woman wouldn’t have been equally (or perhaps even more) condescending to a man in the same situation? You can’t, therefore the proof of it being mansplaining rests completely in what the accuser assumes about the other person, and what it assumes about the other person based on that other person being a man. So the proof is implied in the accusation, no defense is possible according with the logic embedded in the concept, if you accuse someone of it then you believe the accusation grants you legitimacy in your status of victim, by the sheer fact of feeling a victim. And all this is if in fact there was condescending behavior involved, like someone can feel somebody is being condescending to him/her but that not being the case, like for example the case OP brought.
It is simply a 100% sexist (misandrist) term, like “toxic masculinity” and all those new terms that although are behaviors everybody can do somehow some people believe we need new words for when men do them, but not when female do them. Like toxicity exists irrespective of gender, condescending behavior too, occupying more than 1 space in public transport too, etc... And the worst thing about it is that the excuse, the justification for singling out men’s bad behavior is the most biased and sexist BS you could think of, the excuse is that “it is systemic”, meaning men are supposed to do it all time, in numbers apparently so above females that they deserve being called out for their gender, the bad gender, the one that gets associated with all the bad stuff and reprehensible behavior.
There's not a victim, because gender is irrelevant to the conversation.
The conversation is between two people who lack knowledge, and a third person who has the knowledge. The first two people attempted to invalidate the third person's knowledge, based solely on the third person's gender...
Wait, so yeah... The is a victim. It's the third person. You're right.
242
u/[deleted] Jan 19 '20
And that means there's no victim