Misogyny on the Internet has been a very hot topic these past several days, what with the Reddit business I wrote about here and this new business with Penn Jillette and the Tweet written about by Jen McCreight here (“The Straw Woman of the Skeptical Movement), and like all hot topics online it comes with comments. Lots and lots of comments that follow at this point a fairly predictable pattern. Within the first twenty on any well-trafficked blog you’ll probably see someone accused of mansplaining, and someone else objecting to the term, on the basis of not understanding what it actually is or simply not liking the way the word sounds. With that confusion in mind, I drew something up that hopefully illustrates what mansplaining is and is not.
The term “mansplaining” is a portmanteau of “man” and “explaining.” A definition of the term can be found in a blog post by Karen Healey, “A Woman’s Born to Weep and Fret,” with an excerpt here:
Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate “facts” about something you know a hell of a lot more about than he does.
I hope to show with my chart how a conversation, particularly a conversation about sexism, can drift into mansplaining despite the best of intentions. I did do a search for such a chart first and didn’t find anything, so if you know of one better, please send me the link and I’ll include it here. Finally, if the term itself bothers you, get over it. It’s mostly men who do it, and yes, we know that all men don’t. If you don’t do it, it doesn’t apply to you. Just because you are a man and it includes the word “man” doesn’t qualify it as a gross, unfair, mean generalization any more than the term “chick flick” is understood to mean that all women like those kinds of movies–and besides, being called “chick” is way worse than being called “man.”
Clicking on the graphic will display it in a larger size. Enjoy!
[...] its original publishing, your book received a lot of unfair criticism from women. This reeked of petty excuse, but I’ve been misunderstood too. So, I will ignore such priming and let your words speak [...]
I like the chart, but the “click to make it bigger” link is broken. Examining the source suggests that the linked address should be http://morewomeninskepticism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/mansplaining-flow-chart3.png, but the actual link tag is missing that “3,” and redirecting to a 404 page.
Argh, the link in that reply didn’t parse right. This will hopefully work.
You know, I really thought I’d fixed that problem. But I think I have for real now. Thank you for the heads up.
Love the chart!
[...] the people who are causing harm and not for the people who have been harmed. (They also look like mansplainers, and with that link I’ve hit my two-meta-hit maximum per post.) And honestly? I really [...]
Hi! We would like to translate this chart into Spanish for our blog. We’ll give you full credit, of course. Could you email me to let me know? Thanks!
[...] Mansplaining–which I covered here, in my Bonus Content–does not always take a lot of words, but it can, particularly when [...]
Sounds fair to me. In the 1970′s, Dr. Joyce Brothers was the only person authorized to write about what men thought; felt; and desired. Later, after she retired, other women picked up the load. And, I agree. Any man who mansplains when there are women present to womansplain is an idiot.
Found myself linked here by another blog. While I can take in stride a good-natured ribbing based on an ultimately inconsequential stereotype (you mentioned “chick flick” as a good example of this; a male equivalent might be action flicks or refusing to ask for directions when lost) as much as the next person, I think gendering “-splaining” behaviour in the context about a serious debate about sexism is unhelpful because it is, itself, sexist, way worse than the above chick/dude stereotypes, and doesn’t lead to communication or understanding. Yes yes, I read your disclaimer, but Imagine the gender coverse of the term:
–{ Womansplaining is when a chick tells you, a man, how to do something you already know how to do, or how you are wrong about something you are actually right about, or miscellaneous and inaccurate “facts” about something you know a hell of a lot more about than she does. }–
A lot of women would reasonably find such a term offensive and point to it as an example of sexist, misogynistic, patriarchal devaluation of what women say merely because they are women. And they would be right. Mansplaining is no different in that it slides so easily into being a tool to simply refuse to listen to men irrespective of what they’re saying simply because they’re men.
It’s unnecessarily divisive and makes the debate about the debaters and their gender rather than the substantive issues at hand. It says, “rather than me tell you why you’re wrong because of what you say, I’m going to tell you why you’re wrong because of who you are.” If a person is wrong, spews inaccurate “facts” or knows less than you about an issue, than say so and explain why. Don’t make it about his gender. All people reactively devalue others’ opinions when they feel devalued themselves, so it’s certainly not going to help you reach him or change his mind. I’d be equally averse to see adoption of terms such as cisspaining, transsplaining, whitesplaining, blacksplaining, heterosplaining, homosplaining, etc. If the goal is more women in skepticism I fail to see how this helps at all and I think, if that’s truly you’re goal, you should rethink your use of mansplaining.
Nice job on the flowchart though. I always hated having to make those things in Visio for school.
*your. Derp de derp
It is gendered because women don’t talk down to men by falsely assuming what it’s like for men to live in a society run by men. They know already exactly what it’s like, and are equals in the conversation. But men cannot know what it is like to be women living in a society run by men AT ALL, and are not experts in conversations about sexism, and yet they still have the arrogance to believe that they can offer insight or advice to the experts. THAT is mansplaining, and the behavior is far worse than the term, and the presumption that they know enough already to solve women’s problems without listen to what they actually are is what does not lead to communication or understanding.
As for this:
I hate to break it to you, but the terms cissplaining, whitesplaining, and heterosplaining have already been adopted, for the reasons I explain about mansplaining above. And the terms blacksplaining, homosplaining, and transsplaining have not for the same reasons that womansplaining has not. All these members of oppressed groups know very well what it is like to live in a society where the dominant group runs things–just as well as the dominant group knows–and their presumption of expertise is authentic. Whereas the dominant group members have no real idea what it’s like to be the others, and yet demonstrate over and over again that they think they know best anyway.
Just like you came here and mansplained my experience of sexism with your explanations to me of how most women would react, and with lots of insight from your personal point of view. And your suggestion to do this:
This whole blog is me telling you I know more about you on this issue, and explaining why, and look how far it got me. You’ve even expressed doubt that my state goal is my actual goal. This term “mansplaining” isn’t just an unfortunate choice of words. The gender difference in understanding is whole point.
“You’ve even expressed doubt that my state goal is my actual goal.”
I apologize; I did not mean to question your intentions, only this particular method of going about actuating them. I see how my wording leaves that impression and I’m sorry for that.
“… men cannot know what it is like to be women living in a society run by men AT ALL, and are not experts in conversations about sexism, and yet they still have the arrogance to believe that they can offer insight or advice to the experts.”
I don’t purport to know what it’s like to be anyone but me; no one can. Like everyone else I have empathy, compassion, and can try to imagine, though I understand empathy only goes so far and try to be aware of it’s limitations. What I object to is the notion that if I don’t have the lived experience of demographic X, then I necessarily can have no opinion on issue Y effecting demographic X, particularly when a proposed response/solution to issue Y affects people outside of demographic X or society at large. And unfortunately that’s kind of what’s happened here in the rest of your response.
“Just like you came here and mansplained my experience of sexism with your explanations to me of how most women would react, and with lots of insight from your personal point of view.”
Umm, I don’t believe I spoke about your experience of sexism or anyone else’s. I certainly didn’t mean to. I spoke about one of your reactions to it, the term mansplaining. You’re right about a couple things on this point–I essentially gave you my personal reaction to the term mansplaining and then outlined why I didn’t like it, but I introduced that by reversing the genders in an attempt to make my reaction easier to digest. To do this, I did speculate about how “a lot of women” would react to a hypothetical “womansplaining”, but I did not project that to include “most women”. Admittedly, “a lot” is ambiguous but I don’t think such an assertion about how they would react to the term requires me to have the lived experience of being a woman. The “a lot” of women I was referring to are individuals I know well enough to guess their stance on the issue.
At the end of the day, how some number of women would react to the term womansplaining is, I suppose, not essential to my point. It was an analogy to how I reacted to mansplaining. My view is that mansplaining is unlikely to be reserved for behaviour that truly fits the definition. Rather, I think it will be lobbed at dissent regardless of its content. I think that has happened here in this very thread. Alienating people’s opinions because of who they are is only likely to alienate them from the movement. Even when properly applied, it’s needlessly divisive and dismissive.
“This whole blog is me telling you I know more about you on this issue, and explaining why, and look how far it got me.”
Well, I guess now that you’ve called me a mansplainer I guess I don’t have to postulate about other people anymore. Let me tell you where it’s getting you with me.
I love skepticism. It has made a meaningful difference in my life and I want to share that with others. I think it’s hugely socially important and would love to see more people of all stripes involved. That can only make the movement better. Getting wrapped in the mansplaining label makes me feel like no matter what I say about any issue to do with women, it’ll be dubbed the wrong wrong thing and dismissed not on its merits but because of who I am. And that makes me not only not want to speak about women’s issues, but ignore them altogether. This mirrors experiences I’ve had in other spheres. I’ve been accused of being a tacit supporter of sexism for staying silent, and of white knighting for speaking up–by the same person, no less. What the hell am I supposed to do in an environment like that? I consider myself a feminist, and getting cast into the same net as sexists is hurtful and makes me want to avoid those casting the net. I care about this, and I’m trying here. But being labelled like this is frustrating as hell and it just makes me want to tune out and shut off.
Here’s what you are supposed to do. When you see sexism, speak out about it to the people who perform the sexist behaviors, not to the person who it was targeted at. That way, you won’t be mansplaining to the woman what is happening and you won’t be staying silent. And instead of telling a woman how to solve her problems as she experiences sexism, listen to her strategies and her feelings and wait to be asked for advice. Then you won’t be accused of white knighting.
If you think being labeled as a mansplainer is frustrating as hell, try being mansplained to. If you are uncomfortable with the label, do some self-reflection about why the label was lobbied at you instead of lashing out at the people lobbying it. And go back and actually read the flow chart before you assume I’m criticizing all things men say at all times about women’s issues. And think about the flow chart. And look at all the options and all the paths and then maybe you’ll get why I called you a mansplainer here based on your reaction to my experiences of sexism.
If you are tired of talking about women’s issues because women aren’t appreciative of your insight about sexism because you are staying silent when it counts and speaking authoritatively when you have no authority, then do stay silent. If you do really care, though, and actually are really trying to make a difference, however, listen more to the criticism you get about how you are helping and do less talking back. Seriously. And if your feelings get hurt, well, your feelings don’t really matter in conversations women are trying to conduct about the sexism they experience. Try empathizing with their feelings first. Be humble. Admit that you probably don’t have the right answer but agree that as a skeptic you are open to finding out why. And if you find yourself getting caught up in the net cast around sexists, do some self-reflecting on that, too.
It’s not rocket science. You just have to put someone else at the center of this conversation and be content on the periphery. You really do.
Regarding your advice on white-nighting vs. staying silent: I did that and was still labelled as such.
“When you see sexism, speak out about it to the people who perform the sexist behaviors, not to the person who it was targeted at.”
I also did that here. I saw someone (you) using a sexist term (mansplaining) and objected to the person using it. While I indeed find the behaviour it purportedly targets worthy of criticism (as I stated very clearly), I objected to the gendered nature of the term as it castigates all for the actions of some.
“And look at all the options and all the paths and then maybe you’ll get why I called you a mansplainer here based on your reaction to my experiences of sexism.”
Again, I was not talking about your experiences of sexism, I was talking about your use of a gendered term as a shorthand for behaviour you find sexist. Big difference. But I did take your advice to heart and looked at the chart again. I notice that, other than the path along the bottom about absences in the chart, there are only three things a man can do without mansplaining: (1) listen silently, (2) show empathy, or (3) tell others how they should behave differently.
There is no path for acknowledging the sexism but disagreeing with the woman’s proposed solution/response. Or in other words, “What I object to is the notion that if I don’t have the lived experience of demographic X, then I necessarily can have no opinion on issue Y effecting demographic X, particularly when a proposed response/solution to issue Y affects people outside of demographic X or society at large.” I have empathy for all people who experience discrimination in all its forms, but experiencing sexism does not make one an expert on the educational/legal/social systems to address it any more than experiencing cancer makes one an oncologist. Gendered/sexist issues crisscross with all sorts of social segments and structures, and expertise in those areas can be found in men, too. That you would castigate such input is unfair, stifles discussion that might be helpful, and makes it appear that you want to use rhetoric to carve out a zone where your opinions can be free from criticism. That doesn’t look much like skepticism to me.
I spoke up about the term because a) the gendering of impugned behaviour is unfair and b) thought it had the potential to be tossed around willy-nilly. So far you’ve confirmed the latter by tossing it at me. But re the former: it occurs to me that the feminist movement has been effective at consciousness-raising by replacing gendered language with non-gendered. From “chairman of the board” to “manhole”, the strategy is applied consistently. I find it odd that others would consciously adopt “mansplaining” and run counter to that legacy.
Sexism is NOT defined as any instance in which a person points out another person’s sex or gender in a disagreement or unpleasant situation. On a deep level, it’s defined as any behaviour that maintains the gender hierarchy. Two clear genders are defined by our society, and men are of the dominant gender and women the subordinate. So ‘mansplaining’ is not a sexist term – it can only be a sexist term if it works to keep men up high and women down low. ‘Womansplaining’ would be a very sexist term.
Ignoring the reality of gender and gendered hierarchies in a discussion about sexism is a sexist move, because it erases the fact that women suffer oppression in the first place, meaning that women can’t talk about and work against women’s oppression or its causes. So when discussing sexism, recognise that there is a difference in society between men and women, and DO NOT use language that suggests that men and women are already structurally and socially equal to one another.
It is not a good thing for men to come up with ideas for fighting sexism on women’s behalf, without women having any input. It’s not even good if men are just providing a significant proportion of the ideas. It is especially not good when men deem women’s attempts or plans to fight sexism as inappropriate, and then talk those women down, and insist that men’s own ideas and plans be given priority. Silencing women in favour of men’s voices maintains the gender hierarchy of men being more important than women, and blocks any attempts to subvert the gender hierarchy, and so it is sexist.
You’re obviously a shy one who doesn’t find it easy to speak your mind, so I hope that I haven’t unintentionally subjugated you with my womansplaining.
“Sexism is NOT defined as any instance in which a person points out another person’s sex or gender in a disagreement or unpleasant situation. On a deep level, it’s defined as any behaviour that maintains the gender hierarchy.”
Actually, sexism is both. More precisely, both forms are distinct meanings of the word sexism.
Sexism as defined by Merriam-Webster:
“1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women” [let's call this sexism1 - we could also call it sexist discrimination or direct sexism]
“2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex” [let's call this sexism2 - it could also be termed indirect, systemic or social sexism]
It is not sexism2 to object to the term mansplaining or even to suggest that it is sexist1. Just because I am criticizing the word choice of one or some women on the merits of what they say doesn’t mean I’m fostering some stereotype. Even if the stereotype I am purportedly enforcing is, to use your words, that “men are of the dominant gender and women the subordinate” does not mean that I enforce that stereotype merely by criticizing the behaviour of some individual women. That would be ridiculous use of the word sexism because it would imply that any man being critical of any woman for any reason about any subject, no matter how meritorious, is sexist2. This would, in fact, itself be sexist1 because it attracts the label sexist2 only because of the sexes of the speaker and the critic and not because of the content of what they’re actually saying.
I agree with most of the rest of your post (excluding the concluding sarcastic snark), but if you’re accusing me of this behaviour I believe you’re mistaken and are arguing against a strawman (perhaps I should say strawperson?). Just because I disagree with masculinizing the term used to describe a type of objectionable behaviour doesn’t mean that I’m ignoring any reality or suggesting men and women are “structurally and socially equal”. And I’m not silencing anyone, I’m simply stating an opinion that sexism (1 and 2) can be addressed without using dismissive and divisive sexist1 language like mansplaining.
My sincerest apologies for the sarcastic snark. It must have been terribly unpleasant for you, and I hope that you’re okay.
If you deny the effects of patriarchy by telling women that their use of male-gendered terms occurs in EXACTLY the same way as does men’s use of female-gendered terms when used within the context of patriarchy, then you are denying that women’s oppression exists, you are silencing what women have to say about women’s oppression, and you are being sexist.
Read those definitions again. I said ‘mansplaining’ is an instance of sexism1, and never did I claim that “[women's] use of male-gendered terms occurs in EXACTLY the same way as does men’s use of female-gendered terms when used within the context of patriarchy” (i.e. sexism2). YOU drew that inference, and YOU created the strawman you rail against, and now you’re calling me a sexist because of YOUR adverse misinterpretation.
I couldn’t care less about snarks and nonpologies for same, but for crying out loud lay off the sensationalist labels; I am not “sexist”, nor am I “denying oppression” or “silencing” anyone by any non-fanciful assessment of what I’ve actually said. Such language is loaded and should be reserved for when truly deserved. Remember Godwin’s law? Bigotgate? Tossing around accusations of bigotry will-nilly is more characteristic of ideologues, not skeptics.
Sheesh.
“Sexist,” “silencing oppression,” and “silencing” are not sensational or fanciful or loaded words. They are pretty straightforward. The things you have to do to “truly deserve” labels like that are so ordinary as to be unnoticeable sometimes. Bringing up Godwin, however–that’s a pretty extreme reference here.
Sensationalist, perhaps not. But applying those labels to the bland, inoffensive, and not-actually-doing-those-things posts that I’ve made here is indeed fanciful because the characterization has no basis in reality. And if the things one does for you to call them sexist are so slight as to be unnoticeable perhaps your definition thereof is too expansive or your filter too sensitive. If you truly feel that the word sexist isn’t loaded, perhaps you use it so much the usual stigma and emotional load surrounding it has evaporated.
As for the extremism of referencing Godwin’s Law, I’ll concede that–being called a McCarthyist about Nazism is certainly far worse than being called a McCarthyist about sexism. Though the differences are a matter of degree and not kind, it paints with too broad of a brush. Annoying, isn’t it? I apologize to qvaken for the hyperbolic comparison. The bigotgate analogy is spot-on, though.
Your logic and intelligence is admirable, Copermarkus. Unfortunately, it is leading you towards the idea that you are somehow able to be directly involved in this struggle.
I live with a married couple, both feminists. In his words, “I don’t understand why anyone would not be a Feminist. It’s the only way to be human.” Every time I refer to anything having a gender, he calls me out on it and I’ve had to reevaluate every thought I’ve had since this has begun. I can’t even think of a woman as attractive anymore without feeling some kind of guilt, due to comments he’s made that outer apperance is meaningless and I shouldn’t care what anyone ever looks like: That just pushes the male-dominant ideal that before you can consider anything, particularly about a woman, you must first analyze their potential attractiveness as a mate.
I noted that I understand this is a flaw, because a person could be dismissed as less attractive before getting to know them. His return to that, was that I missed the point: Everyone is attractive, whether you know them or not. (I had to kind of tune out at this point. It’s a great sentiment, but impossible, for me at least, to participate in at this stage in my life.) I’m not perfect.
That all said, I’ve learned that everything I say has to be analyzed before releasing it into the world. For example, I should strive to be gender neutral. I should not apply any notion to someone due to their gender at all, but rather as something universal to all people. After all, every human has a sex drive, cheats, can be a good or bad driver, ascribes to utilization of logic over emotion (and vice versa). So to ascribe an idea to a man or woman, is to potentially ignore the possibility that I am not addressing other humans with the exact same potential behaviors.
As someone who believes strongly in science, this has been very difficult to me. Simple biology, anatomy, and physiology has a lot to say on this topic. However, it does no one any good to acknowledge those differences outside of matters directly pertaining to these things, such as matters of health… pretty much only matters of health, I suppose.
Their definition of a Feminist is apparently someone who acknowledges this male-dominant world and does everything they can to disassemble that advantage and empower women without requiring men to be the source of that power.
So, the idea is, all we as men can do in this stage in the world, is counter acts of male-derived sexism. Leave the empowerment of women to women and just help to make sure that the path is clear of male-derived obstacles as you witness them.
This isn’t exactly how most other forms of empowerment have worked in the past, but this is how feminists want to go about it and I support that.
That all said, I am all for the essence of your argument Copermarkus, and know you’re coming from a good place with good intentions. Some people don’t care about that and feel they must fix your thinking on their terms, disallowing for progressive discussion. Just think the way you’re supposed to and everyone will get along. I do not subscribe to that personally, but have found ways to get along with and learn from those who do without fundamentally changing who I am… aside from just trying to come from a good place, with good intentions.