It means that you assume you know more simply based on sex.
Isn’t that misandry to assume the man is a sexist because he’s shitty at explaining things or communicating generally you know like a stereotypical man. We can’t be both incredibly myopic and excessively insightful of nuance.
An operational definition of “mansplaining”: If a man assumes he knows more about than a woman explicitly because he is a man and she is a woman. He explains to her x,y,z from this perspective.
Example: A man always talks over female peers, and explains answers during open ended discussions, because he believes he is better and more rational at open-ended discussions than his female counterparts regardless of any evidence of this, or even in spite of it.
Non-Example: A man informs a woman or others about a topic he is more interested or informed in, at a (possibly annoying) length.
It isn’t misandry to call out this bad behavior. Yes it cuts both ways, but we are talking about this term specifically.
I just gave you a behavioral definition with examples and non-examples. I’m sorry, I don’t know how else to simplify it. I can only assume you’re willfully not understanding. Have a good day.
Yeah because clearly seeking understanding means I’m a bigot and yes I see your /s and I’ll say that doesn’t make it much less of a shitty thing to imply.
I understand that I still don’t enjoy mean spirited comments shallowly veiled with a claim of sarcasm. Here especially if doesn’t help because I’m not trying to be mean I’m legitimately trying to figure out how people parse that distinction or on their heads because to me they’re the exact same bigoted trash.
That’s exactly what I was doing hence the twice repeated question, you can claim a lot of things but that isn’t one that has legs.
Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?
That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge
They didn’t make any assumptions, nor did they explain anything that “requires prior knowledge” – because they gave a definition of a term, not a scenario. Your questioning only makes sense if they were talking about a scenario. It makes no sense as a follow up to a definition.
Anyways, that’s just meta noise.
Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?
You’re free to call women bigoted for how they feel about their lived experience regarding condescension from men. Just as I’m free to judge that as incel behaviour.
Yes the way they defined is use requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming and my assertion is that isn’t substantially different then assuming someone doesn’t know something because of their sex.
And you can call someone bigoted for saying something in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable solely based on their sex. I don’t see the difference.
Isn’t that misandry to assume the man is a sexist because he’s shitty at explaining things or communicating generally you know like a stereotypical man. We can’t be both incredibly myopic and excessively insightful of nuance.
Let me be more clear:
An operational definition of “mansplaining”: If a man assumes he knows more about than a woman explicitly because he is a man and she is a woman. He explains to her x,y,z from this perspective.
Example: A man always talks over female peers, and explains answers during open ended discussions, because he believes he is better and more rational at open-ended discussions than his female counterparts regardless of any evidence of this, or even in spite of it.
Non-Example: A man informs a woman or others about a topic he is more interested or informed in, at a (possibly annoying) length.
It isn’t misandry to call out this bad behavior. Yes it cuts both ways, but we are talking about this term specifically.
That explanation requires prior knowledge or post hoc knowledge otherwise you’re simply saying it’s based on sex or race.
How is this substantially different then screeching “dei” at every minority that mildly inconveniences you?
I just gave you a behavioral definition with examples and non-examples. I’m sorry, I don’t know how else to simplify it. I can only assume you’re willfully not understanding. Have a good day.
That’s a neat dodge. How is it different then assuming someone is a dei hire instead of simply an incompetent employee?
Maybe if you were a man, you could explain it better.
/s
Yeah because clearly seeking understanding means I’m a bigot and yes I see your /s and I’ll say that doesn’t make it much less of a shitty thing to imply.
my /s was to show that this is the sad joke line someone would actually say like it was a truth. I’m on your side…
I understand that I still don’t enjoy mean spirited comments shallowly veiled with a claim of sarcasm. Here especially if doesn’t help because I’m not trying to be mean I’m legitimately trying to figure out how people parse that distinction or on their heads because to me they’re the exact same bigoted trash.
It wasn’t an explanation about how to assess whether someone is mansplaining or not – it was a definition of what mansplaining is.
Yeah and I’m asking them to use their definition in comparison, how exactly is saying “he’s mansplaining” substantially different then “dei hire”.
To be clear, no you weren’t. Hence the confusion.
But since you’ve clarified: obviously using any term to unfairly accuse someone of being or doing something is a bad thing. Is that a real question?
That’s exactly what I was doing hence the twice repeated question, you can claim a lot of things but that isn’t one that has legs.
Correct, both are based on assumptions that are as offensive as the assumption that they’re mansplaining or a dei hire or whatever.
My point is that you can’t use either without yourself being bigoted enough to come to a conclusion based on bigoted assumptions so how are they substantially different?
Them:
You:
They didn’t make any assumptions, nor did they explain anything that “requires prior knowledge” – because they gave a definition of a term, not a scenario. Your questioning only makes sense if they were talking about a scenario. It makes no sense as a follow up to a definition.
Anyways, that’s just meta noise.
You’re free to call women bigoted for how they feel about their lived experience regarding condescension from men. Just as I’m free to judge that as incel behaviour.
Yes the way they defined is use requires someone to know the intent of the speaker which means they know them or they’re simply assuming and my assertion is that isn’t substantially different then assuming someone doesn’t know something because of their sex.
And you can call someone bigoted for saying something in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable solely based on their sex. I don’t see the difference.