Mansplaining for Dummies

[Scooter]

Mansplaining, explained in one simple chart

Two male colleagues recently asked me, unprompted, “How do I know if I’m mansplaining?” Both are experts who are often asked to explain concepts to colleagues outside their fields. Both were concerned about those explanations being taken the wrong way. I wondered: Is it really so hard to tell the difference between condescending or simply explaining-while-male?

When people (almost always men) explain the product design methods in my own book to me, I say I’m well-acquainted with them, mentally roll my eyes, and move on. I hadn’t developed a succinct explanation for what distinguishes mansplaining, so I spent a few minutes drafting a diagram, as I often do to examine or explain ideas in my work. I realised the “-splaining” part comes down to three factors:

Do they want the explanation? If someone asks you a question, explain away! Unsolicited explanations may be fine (within reason) if you’re someone’s teacher or manager. Explaining after they’ve declined your help is almost always disrespectful. Conversation is a good place to start building the habit of consent.

Are you making bad assumptions about competence? Explaining things to knowledgeable people isn’t just wasting everyone’s time. You may, regardless of your intent, undermine them by implying you don’t trust their competence or intelligence. You also run the risk of undermining yourself by looking like you have an inflated opinion of your own knowledge.

How does bias affect your interpretation of the above? Both questions are complicated by sexism and other kinds of bias. We’re all taught gender bias in behavior and communication from an early age, with boys and girls being criticised and praised for different behaviors in school. We all like to think we treat people fairly, but men often assume women are less competent, and white people are likely to assume darker skin equals lower intelligence.

When yet another colleague brought up his mansplaining worries, I decided to post the diagram on Twitter, where my professional community often discusses communication issues. I was not quite prepared for the viral response—3,300 comments, 50,000 retweets, and 120,000 likes, as of Friday morning. I’ve seen stories on several blogs, and someone even translated it into Serbian.

Thousands of female-appearing Twitter users started sharing the post, asking to print it on business cards or staple it to the foreheads of men. (Some added: asking first is polite behaviour for any gender.)



Responses from male-appearing Tweeters were more mixed. Some responded with mansplaining, either explaining sexism to women or asking how women would learn if men didn’t share their knowledge. Many said the diagram was helpful. Others wondered whether this is really a gendered behaviour; a few argued (fairly, I think) that fathers are frequently mum-splained.

Quite a few responses said: men do this to other men too – it’s annoying, but women should just respond as men do. In other words: men agree that men do this a lot, but men aren’t going to change, so women should adopt the “masculine” norm. Interesting assumption.

There was much angst about the m-word: is it sexism in reverse? Sorry, but no.

Some women use this gendered term to express frustration with sexist communication norms, but that doesn’t invalidate the message. A snarky word is also not the equivalent of systemic sexism, which primarily targets women while also limiting the lives of men. And isn’t it odd that nobody gets offended when “mother-henning” behaviour is described as gendered?

Plenty of evidence supports the idea that communication behaviours are often gendered in multiple ways. In school, boys are encouraged to take more air time. Adult men then talk much more in groups, which adds to their perceived influence. Women are interrupted more than men, by both men and women, but women rarely interrupt men. Women in senior positions may learn to interrupt, but are likely to be seen as both more rude and less intelligent. Assertive women are called “abrasive” in performance reviews.

Although there may be consequences for women who adopt stereotypically masculine communication behaviours, studies show men are rewarded more when they adopt certain “female” behaviors at work. Given that, I think it is fair to ask: if men also find mansplaining counterproductive, why, exactly, should any of us accept it as the norm?

Mansplaining may seem like a trivial issue in isolation, but how we communicate tells other people how much or little they are valued. And in my experience, humans feel better, work more effectively, and behave better when we feel valued ourselves.

[Lord Jim]

white people are likely to assume darker skin equals lower intelligence.

Gee, that looks like an, well, assumption to me...

And one that the author of the article provides no evidence to support...

[Scooter]

She may have had studies like this one in mind:

Perhaps reflecting a desire to emphasize the enduring power of rigidly constructed racial categories, sociology has tended to downplay the importance of within-category variation in skin tone. Similarly, in popular media, “colorism,” or discrimination based on skin lightness, is rarely mentioned. When colorism is discussed, it is almost exclusively framed in terms of intraracial “black-on-black” discrimination. In line with arguments highlighting the centrality of white racism, the present paper contends that it is important for researchers to give unique attention to white colorism. Using data from the 2012 American National Election Study, an example is presented on white interviewers’ perceptions of minority respondent skin tone and intelligence (N = 223). Results from ordinal logistic regression analyses indicate that African American and Latino respondents with the lightest skin are several times more likely to be seen by whites as intelligent compared with those with the darkest skin. The article concludes that a full accounting of white hegemony requires an acknowledgment of both white racism and white colorism.

[rubato]

"Mansplaining" is a purely fictional social crime invented by people who are thin-skinned and socially timid. It is an attempt to recast merely boorish behavior as a crime against the female gender.




yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A.

[Econoline]

[Lord Jim]

Looks to me like somebody's been accused of mansplaining...

[Joe Guy]

Looks to me like someone mansplaining his definition of mansplaining...

[Long Run]

How did Lucy deal with this?

[Joe Guy]

Ricky 'splained it to Lucy.

[Gob]

"Mansplaining" is a purely fictional social crime invented by people who are thin-skinned and socially timid.

I will be Exhibit B then. I totally agree with that.

[Bicycle Bill]

"Mansplaining" is a purely fictional social crime invented by people who are thin-skinned and socially timid.

I will be Exhibit B then. I totally agree with that.

Likewise.  Just another grand gesture to supposedly empower women by further denigrating men.
Why else would they have dubbed it MANsplaining?

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

[Big RR]

My only complaint with the name is the gender connotation, as being something men do to women. What I have found is that blowhards and verbal bullies are generally just as likely to do this to other men as to women, but that often other men will tell them to shut up, cutting it short. While I have to doubt that there are some men who target women this way as a way of self empowerment, most are just insecure jerks who need to hear themselves talk to feel some semblance of self worth.

[Crackpot]

Mansplaining like toxic masculinity are real things though the labels are abused to the point of being almost meaningless in practice.

Case in point: an open question was posed for a white male viewpoint. I have a detailed answer. I was accused of Mansplaining

[Joe Guy]

Until this highly educational thread, I thought 'mansplaining' was a joke. I thought it meant what it sounds like it means: how a man explains something as opposed to how a woman would explain the same thing.

Instead I've learned that it's just another term invented by women to explain how they've been victimized.

[Bicycle Bill]

Joe Guy .... right on!!!

My only complaint with the name is the gender connotation, as being something men do to women. What I have found is that blowhards and verbal bullies are generally just as likely to do this to other men as to women, but that often other men will tell them to shut up, cutting it short. While I have to doubt that there are some men who target women this way as a way of self empowerment, most are just insecure jerks who need to hear themselves talk to feel some semblance of self worth.

Given the flowchart and Big RR's assessment of the behavior, then this person had to have been one of the first, if not THE first, 'mansplainer' in recorded history.  And whether it's at work, in a bar, here on this BBS, or even among your own extended family or social group, we all know someone like him.

However, this person was (rightly) considered to be a blowhard and somewhat of a jerk... no other label was necessary then, and no other label is necessary now.

-"BB"-

[Econoline]

[Big RR]

[Crackpot]

Has anyone defined the difference between “ mansplaining” and simply “geeking out” I realized the two could be easily confused 5 minutes Into a story following a question that was answered after the first minute.