Comment

Saying someone is mansplaining is a normative statement. You’re stating a moral position by using the word. One aspect of that moral position is the use of this obnoxious spelling, “splaining,” which is clearly meant to denigrate the desire to explain things. This is anti-intellectual, yet it’s couched in the oh-so-innocent veneer of being pro-feminism.

To contrast, calling someone a bigot is stating a moral position, but the only moral position it states is that bigotry is bad, which isn’t anti-intellectual.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Warl0k3@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I’m sorry it’s gotten late here, is your basis for claiming it as an anti-intellectual term really just that the word is a malformed portmanteau?

source
- ronigami@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  There are several parts of the word’s meaning, some of them optional:
  
  man explaining thing to woman
  
  poorly / incorrectly
  
  dismissively
  
  that she already knows
  
  to someone who knows more about it
  
  But the only real requirement is #1. Despite what anyone says, even if the thing is not explained dismissively and is explained well to someone who doesn’t know about it, you could still call it mansplaining because it’s punching up. Which again only serves to say that attempting to explain is the shameful part.
  
  source
  - Warl0k3@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Punching up again. You keep using that word, and I don’t think it means what I think it means. You’re using it as a stand-in for asserting inherent superiority over another person, but correcting someone on the internet does not actually imply that.
    
    But the only real requirement is #1
    
    Why? No, seriously, who says? You’re the one making that claim here, and you appear to be the only one doing that. Why is that the only real requirement, and why does it conflict with all the broadly accepted definitions (including the one you just provided)?
    
    source