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.
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.
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.
That’s a neat dodge. How is it different then assuming someone is a dei hire instead of simply an incompetent employee?