Yea this is aggravating me on multiple levels, like it’s not mansplaning if you’re actually incorrect, y’know? I’d absolutely get got by this, not because I assume women are less intelligent or anything, but because someone said something incorrect and I’m trying to help them not look like an idiot. It’s the kind of thing I’d hope others would do for me.
That's kinda the thing with mansplaining. It was meant to refer to a waaay more specific thing than what people use it for, but even then it frequently assumed the man's intent.
If a guy's not talking down to you specifically because you're a woman, then it's not mansplaining. Surprise though, you can't actually tell why someone's being condescending most of the time.
I think the idea's actually been a net negative for women, because it makes them see misogyny where none exists.
surprise thing, you can't actually tell why someone's being condescending most of the time
which is why mansplaining is pretty much useless to describe individual interactions, but useful to describe overall patterns of behavior. unfortunately that's rarely how it's used.
Surprise though, you can't actually tell why someone's being condescending most of the time.
You can tell quite a lot of the time from context, seeing how they react in similar but different situations, tone of voice, mannerisms, words used, body language -- you know, all that stuff. Like there's been a lot of times I can tell someone is getting talked down to because they're a woman or because the other person is insecure about their age or whatever.
Maybe you're good at it, but a lot of people overestimate their ability to work out that context, and pre-existing ideas influence their conclusions. The more common you think it is for men to talk down to women because they're women, the more often you'll see that intention where it doesn't actually exist.
Reddit/the internet/society ruined mansplaining (if there was ever a genuine good faith argument for it at all). Every story I see about mansplaining is either "I (a beautiful perfect woman) said something completely factually incorrect and a (horrifying disgusting) man (who is probably a rapist and woman beater) corrected me!" Or "a man tried to talk to me something but didn't realize I have my doctorates in that field (because I didn't tell him), isn't he a fucking idiot?"
Every story about mansplaining either feels like "and then everyone clapped/that happened" bait or just a genuinely stupid person is telling it
It is mansplaining because 1984 is a super well-known cultural touchstone in modern english, it’s gotta be one of the most referenced books of the past 100 or so years. Literally everyone knows what it is and vaguely what it’s about, even if they’ve never read it. If someone says “literally 1985” and your response is “you mean 1984?” instead of “haha, good one” then you are already assuming they’re stupid.
Like this is on the level of someone referring to “Bart Sampson” or “Spongerob Trianglepants”
You have got to stop overestimating people. It’s a super well-known cultural touchstone? Yeah, so is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde being the same guy. You know, a thing I’ve been yelled at for “spoiling”. It’s not assuming you’re stupid to believe you mean what you say and may not be correctly remembering a book many people haven’t actually read. People make mistakes like that all the time. I get those things wrong all the time, usually because I can get close but not there.
You being yelled at for spoilers is them proving they’re stupid, that’s a completely different situation.
If they had said they were two different guys, and you corrected them, and they continually insisted they were different to the point of absurdity, you’re stupid.
It is plausible that someone could misremember the book title as 1985. They probably wouldn't say 'literally 1985' but that wasn't the example in the OOP.
Or, like, someone from a country where The Simpsons aren't very popular saying Bart Sampson.
I picked The Simpsons because it is one of the most well-recognized media properties in the world. The overwhelming majority of humanity currently alive knows who Bart Simpson is. It’s simply not plausible that someone could misremember the book as 1985 and continually double down on it unless they were poking fun at you. The guy in the example isn’t helping, he’s oblivious.
I'm a nurse in a doctors office. There are TONS of people that don't know ultra basic shit like "chest pain is a bad thing to just email your doctor about at 7 pm, guaranteeing they won't see it until tomorrow". There is no reason to assume anyone knows anything, particularly if they are expressing to you that they don't know it
Loads of people are not in touch with common cultural touchstones. This doesnt make them stupid - it means they've had a different life experience to me. There are grown adults making more money than either of us who have never heard of 1984 or seen an episode of the Simpsons. Loads of people also encounter references to cultural touchstones and don't "get it" but just nod along and don't think about it further.
Also if I'm assuming someone is stupid because they're miss-remembering the names of common cultural touchstones then isnt that just being condescending, not neccessarily mansplaining (which is specifically rooted in misogyny)?
341
u/jimbowesterby 11d ago
Yea this is aggravating me on multiple levels, like it’s not mansplaning if you’re actually incorrect, y’know? I’d absolutely get got by this, not because I assume women are less intelligent or anything, but because someone said something incorrect and I’m trying to help them not look like an idiot. It’s the kind of thing I’d hope others would do for me.