Serena Williams at the US Open

[dragoncar]

I'd like to think that if nothing else, we all learned that @former player is f*ing awesome

My vote goes to dragoncar. :-P

I have to say I'm pretty humbled by the fact that 2 PhDs have weighed in. I can't say I fully understand the struggles women in all stratas have to undergo daily, but my eyes have been opened more. Individual situations can be explained away, but patterns remain. Credit to those who've spoken up, and to former player for putting that specific idea into my brain. I'm a bit more reserved in judgement and less cynical on social justice issues as a result of this whole discussion.

I don’t know what we are voting on, but to be clear my only point is that I think a woman can be accused of “mansplaining.”  I wasn’t weighing in on whether it’s sexist, but probably lean towards yes in the innocuous way that sexism towards privileged classes tends to be overlooked.  As a man I’m not personally offended by the phrase, but if I was a woman I’d probably be offended by someone saying someone else is PMSing.  But I do think men can PMS in the insulting use of that phrase.  “Bob is PMSing” May be offensive but people understand what it means.  Nobody is confused because bob isn’t a woman.

[neo von retorch]

I'll end up deleting my post later because these threads drive me nuts. So far, it's driven me nuts reading the things people think are right or wrong or are worth defending. Later, it will just drive me nuts that no one changed their mind or had an "ah ha!" moment. I'll try, and fail, to explain things to other people, from my "all knowing, I'm right" tall, wealthy, straight, white male viewpoint.

I'm not oppressed.

You can point out that I said or did something racist.
You can remind me that I have white privilege.
You can call me out on "man-splaining."

I'm still better off than a pretty darn large percentage of the population.

When someone comes to my house and estimates a service, it's very unlikely that they'll ask where my wife is, if she has questions for him, or if she should be there to make a decision.

When I go to an interview, I don't really have to try very hard to prove that I know the things I claim I know. I don't have to worry about how I look - not hard. Sure, clean clothes that aren't torn. Hair has, like, a little product in it so it's not a complete mess (or, god forbid, an unintentional mess). I won't have to worry that I'm "too sexy" or "not sexy enough." The thought will not even cross my mind that I might be thought of as a sexual object, and get or not get an offer of employment based on how appealing I am to those interviewing me. (Almost certainly I will get an automatic pass on "seeming a lot like" my interviewers, who are almost always straight white men.)

When I'm interacting with strangers, it's very unlikely that someone will make a comment about my availability or appeal as a sexual being. About the closest will probably be the kind server who says "sure thing, honey" as she refills my coffee - and that could be her being polite, kind or feeling pressure to treat a man as someone likeable because she has to in our system - but I'm not inside her head, I am guessing wildly. (Yet I get lots of accounts from females about near constant comments about their bodies, their clothes, their appearance, etc.)

I participate in this system. I benefit from it. I sometimes start talking before a woman has finished. I sometimes use terms I haven't realized are harmful. I probably sometimes touch a shoulder without thinking and it makes someone uncomfortable. I sometimes laugh at a joke before realizing two things - it is offensive to some people, and those people probably heard it, and they do not feel comfortable trying to change the behavior behind that offense. I could do better.

It might take effort on my part to do better. Guess what? I have the extra capacity. Everything I've done in my life has been easier because of where I was placed in the birth lottery by sheer chance. While I'm reaping all these benefits from being who I am without having to do a whole lot, the least I can do is put more effort into being mindful of everyone around me without those benefits. I can absorb terms that someone who fits my description can complain about, like "mansplaining" or "white privilege." Because even if you make an argument that the result of those concepts is that something is taken away from me, I'm still so far ahead that it's just fine. I know Ayn Rand says we all just should watch out for Numero Uno and be the big winners, and you know, you can believe what you choose in your own head. But humans rose up from the monkey mud through a lot of effort to think about things in bigger ways, as communities and as groups that interact and seek the solutions that are greater than the sum of the parts. And I do believe that changing the way we think about each other to be more egalitarian and less based on our differences will result in doing the things that groups of people do best - our best and brightest ideas, our safety nets and standard of living improvements and health and all those other things our advanced species has come to appreciate.

[PizzaSteve]

I also appretiate the thoughtful responses.  During my career I worked for extended time periods in over 60 organizations and remember many as having blatent gender inequities, nearly all favoring men (though a few biased towards women, where a manslainer would quickly be ousted by women management and have a shorted career).  In some, women were more or less forced to mirror male behavior patterns to succeed or had mentoring/apprentice type advancement models where it was harder for women to get a senior mentor (as some men feared repeat of sexual harrassment type scandals if paying attention to a younger associate). 

The issues were complex and I had many debates with folks when I advocated that senior men should be required to mentor women (it woukd help to break the ice, if a woman was assigned instead of the more organic way it was happening, which favored men, since older folks tend to look for younger versions of themselves to mentor). 

Anyway, it is sad to see the resilience of glass ceiling situations, but I am also glad I grew to be more aware as I got older and now some of the women friends I helped support are large company CEOs.   

Sometimes the PC police over compensate, but awareness sometimes needs to be smacked into people I guess.

[mm1970]

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men?  Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting.  Good.  The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them.  The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining.  There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job.  Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

No, men who are not the guilty party think that it's offensive to be grouped in with someone who is being condescending because they are male. I would have thought the idea that attaching negative behavior to a group of people based on their sex would be a pretty obvious case of stereotyping. stereotyping = bad.

But as others arguing against the word have said, they (and I) don't really care that much. The real problem is that some people do. it's just shooting feminism in the foot and giving those who don't want to correct they're behavior an excuse to say "You're a hypocrite and therefore I'm not listening to you"

I don't really understand this, however.  "Mansplaining", by definition, means something specific - not all men, not all conversations, not all explanations.  You have to fall into a particular category to be accused of "mansplaining", so why, exactly, would "non-guilty" males even care?  They are not being grouped in with anyone.

[AnswerIs42]

I think my main issue is that it's an ugly mess of a word, it sounds like a wet fart or something.

"I thought it was going to be just a normal fart, but I was wrong... I mansplatted all over my pants :("

[simonsez]

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men?  Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting.  Good.  The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them.  The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining.  There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job.  Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

No, men who are not the guilty party think that it's offensive to be grouped in with someone who is being condescending because they are male. I would have thought the idea that attaching negative behavior to a group of people based on their sex would be a pretty obvious case of stereotyping. stereotyping = bad.

But as others arguing against the word have said, they (and I) don't really care that much. The real problem is that some people do. it's just shooting feminism in the foot and giving those who don't want to correct they're behavior an excuse to say "You're a hypocrite and therefore I'm not listening to you"

I don't really understand this, however.  "Mansplaining", by definition, means something specific - not all men, not all conversations, not all explanations.  You have to fall into a particular category to be accused of "mansplaining", so why, exactly, would "non-guilty" males even care?  They are not being grouped in with anyone.

Hmm, really?  The word man is right there and does nothing to delineate between men who are rampant offenders and those who are not.

What about Indian giver?  Why would American Indians that do not renege on a transaction even care?  Just playing devil's advocate.

[partgypsy]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women including referring to them by their genitalia were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Slang_terms_for_women

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/thesaurus-category/american/insulting-words-for-a-woman

[one piece at a time]

Opaat, I am actually hoping your response will explain more to the open-minded men in this thread than anything I could say myself.

So generous. I was about to tell Opaat to go put a gun in his mouth but, now I'll refrain.

Let's meet up. You sound like fun.

[simonsez]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

[one piece at a time]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.

[partgypsy]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Huh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[Kris]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.

Um...

What?

[simonsez]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Huh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

You are using mansplain in spite of the fact that some don't care for that term.  You say you are doing this until derogatory phrases against women go away.  You do not seem optimistic the misogynistic words are going away and thus one would conclude you will continue to use mansplain.

I'm saying I would rather try to stop using offensive words and phrases regardless if someone else is being offensive, i.e. my actions are independent of the ignorant and I'd rather take other's preferences into account when talking/acting.  You, on the other hand, will treat others how others treat you.

[former player]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Huh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

You are using mansplain in spite of the fact that some don't care for that term.  You say you are doing this until derogatory phrases against women go away.  You do not seem optimistic the misogynistic words are going away and thus one would conclude you will continue to use mansplain.

I'm saying I would rather try to stop using offensive words and phrases regardless if someone else is being offensive, i.e. my actions are independent of the ignorant and I'd rather take other's preferences into account when talking/acting.  You, on the other hand, will treat others how others treat you.

No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive. 

It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive.  Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.

[neo von retorch]

Mansplaining is not offensive.

The patriarchal men think/assume they know more than women. They talk over them and condescend them.

It's a made-up word that concisely identifies an offensive behavior that reflects the existing systemic problem.

Men are not oppressed or held back by the systemic problems that affect women and minorities. While they can decide inside their head that they don't like that their bad behavior has been given a pithy name, they don't have any legitimate platform to stand on to complain about it.

Fix the problem. Stop the bad behavior. You don't get to whine about not liking this word. It doesn't paint you (or all men) as "less than." It labels a bad behavior.

[partgypsy]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Huh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

You are using mansplain in spite of the fact that some don't care for that term.  You say you are doing this until derogatory phrases against women go away.  You do not seem optimistic the misogynistic words are going away and thus one would conclude you will continue to use mansplain.

I'm saying I would rather try to stop using offensive words and phrases regardless if someone else is being offensive, i.e. my actions are independent of the ignorant and I'd rather take other's preferences into account when talking/acting.  You, on the other hand, will treat others how others treat you.

Actually the golden rule is do unto others, how you would like them to treat you.  Which is a great rule. So you refraining from using offensive terms, because you would not want people to use terms that may offend you, are keeping to the golden rule (not the platinum rule). The other term is tit for tat.  To put it out there, I don't believe I've actually ever used the term mansplain in real life. I'm rather a polite person, though I definitely have said non-pc things in the past due to sheer cluelessness.  Offensive terms do not add to the level of discourse, but the overall level of discourse going on in this country, is rather low at this point and I think that men are rather - sheltered - if a term like mansplainer offends them given what women encounter going about their daily lives, or even venturing in some parts of the internet. And at this particular juncture, given who is in office as POTUS, women in general are a bit less "patient" about catering to men's wounded feelings. It's not great, it adds to the sense of division in this country, but it is what it is.

[simonsez]

Actually the golden rule is do unto others, how you would like them to treat you.  Which is a great rule. So you refraining from using offensive terms, because you would not want people to use terms that may offend you, are keeping to the golden rule (not the platinum rule). The other term is tit for tat.  To put it out there, I don't believe I've actually ever used the term mansplain in real life. I'm rather a polite person, though I definitely have said non-pc things in the past due to sheer cluelessness.  Offensive terms do not add to the level of discourse, but the overall level of discourse going on in this country, is rather low at this point and I think that men are rather - sheltered - if a term like mansplainer offends them given what women encounter going about their daily lives, or even venturing in some parts of the internet. And at this particular juncture, given who is in office as POTUS, women in general are a bit less "patient" about catering to men's wounded feelings. It's not great, it adds to the sense of division in this country, but it is what it is.

Is it great?  It's open to interpretation on how it is applied.  Sure, if you are unsure about someone else the Golden Rule is a great starting point.  But beyond that, why would you ignore how someone else wants to be treated and instead push your preferences on someone else that may or may not feel the same way? 

The Serena cartoonist applying the Golden Rule: "I will draw caricatures that I personally do not find offensive.  Someone could caricature me and it would not offend me."
The Serena cartoonist applying the Platinum Rule: "Hmm, based on past experiences when I've drawn extra attention to race in my drawings there has been a backlash.  Maybe I should reconsider some of the choices and how much to exaggerate some details.  Even though I do not have a problem with the idea in my head, it seems others definitely would and I do not wish to offend."

A little warped way of using the rules?  Sure, but it's not like it would be that crazy for someone to claim they are acting in a way they are fine with being treated similarly in return while others are offended.

My point was that our own preferences and what we find offensive are subjective and even a well-meaning person may still offend without meaning to (not saying at all the cartoonist was well-meaning).  Mansplain was just a fill in the blank term, it could be anything that would be unsuspectingly offensive to some.  I mean, I don't love my entire gender being grouped in with obnoxious misnogynists but this sheltered white male won't rise to the level and say the word is taboo by any means.  It DOES draw attention to societal issues, this is good!  But Internet is different than real life, something that just starts to register while reading is a lot more sensitive than what it would take for me to express that the words/action someone is using that I encounter in person is offensive and to ask them to stop or reconsider (but again, 6'6" 240 pound sheltered white male here who is amused and intrigued much more often than feeling marginalized or threatened).  I do enjoy reading different perspectives on here without all that nonverbal communication sending out mixed signals.

[partgypsy]

To say a cartoonist is following the golden rule bc he draws a cartoon that is not offensive to him but likely offensive to others, is not the golden rule! The golden rule is trying to be empathetic how someone would be affected by your actions, and making your actions consistent to how you would want to be treated, in the sense that would you not want to be hurt, or made fun of, and the cartoonist would very well know that this kind of drawing would be hurtful, judging from past experience. It's in the definition. No need for anything additional. For example maybe drawing a derogatory picture of himself is not hurtful. But someone joking about his dad beating up his mom would bother him. So he may say I shouldn't do that drawing in the same way I wouldn't want someone to make a joke at my mom's expense. It's about the feelings, not the exact term used.

[one piece at a time]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.

Um...

What?

Pol Pot was a class hero who ended pointless arguments about the definitions of words with concrete actions. The ultimate face punch, if you will. I would have thought that here at Mr Money Moustache we could learn how to appreciate his lack of complaining. Simply Do.

[Kris]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.

Um...

What?

Pol Pot was a class hero who ended pointless arguments about the definitions of words with concrete actions. The ultimate face punch, if you will. I would have thought that here at Mr Money Moustache we could learn how to appreciate his lack of complaining. Simply Do.

Yes, of course I know who Pol Pot was. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to kill “the people in the universities” in particular.

Also, I think you might be being just a tad dramatic.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive. 

It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive.  Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.

Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this). I haven't seen anyone that I can recall saying the word is more offensive than the action of a man being a jerk and explaining something to a woman she doesn't want to hear and/or may know more about....just that it is offensive in and of itself and people defending it as not being offensive.

Let me first say, I don't care one way or the other about the word. That kind of thing doesn't bother me. I agree that women have a much tougher road than men. The comments on job interviews, men condescending to women, men treating women badly, etc....not arguing with any of it. The fact that women have a crap ton of more negative names used towards them. No doubt. I'm just writing here because I do have to admit I find a little bit of humor in people who are so quick to decry any potential offense that refuse to see something that is so clearly there.

Now, let's look at some of the points brought up for why it's not offensive. I've seen, "well, my (boyfriend/husband/I know a guy) doesn't think it's bad therefore it's not bad". I see this on many of my conservative friends' social media accounts all the time. Look at this one black guy who is talking about how the Confederate flag is completely fine, therefore there's nothing wrong with displaying it on a state capitol. I don't see a lot of acceptance of that perspective from people who would probably be the same ones who think the term mansplaining is fine, and I wouldn't expect it. It's a good pat yourself on the back point to score, not a logical argument.

I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.

One other argument I've seen. The "this wasn't meant to say all men fit this, so it's not bad." Last time I checked, this wasn't even close to being a litmus test for bigoted phrases - reference pow wow. It was agreed upon above as offensive, and forget not lumping all Native Americans as having a negative trait, it's well beyond that. There's nothing negative at all in the term that I'm aware of . It's just being used in a flippant manner, and yet it is considered offensive. "Mansplain" surely fits in with a negative expression that puts a category of people in the very word it uses. I don't think a test that's not used as a restriction for other offensive phrases should really count.

I think these terms show pretty clearly that these explanations of why it shouldn't be offensive are making the word a total exception from standards used for offensive words. I'm not saying the word should be taboo or anything either. I'm just finding the lack of consistency interesting.

The only argument that holds water to me is that men haven't been oppressed. Fine. Women have been oppressed far more than men have historically. Therefore, men should just suck it up and not worry about this term because of that one fact. Fine. The word doesn't bother me. I've used it myself. Just make that argument, and don't try to beat around the bush with these other superfluous explanations that aren't consistent with how other words are being evaluated.

[one piece at a time]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.

Um...

What?

Pol Pot was a class hero who ended pointless arguments about the definitions of words with concrete actions. The ultimate face punch, if you will. I would have thought that here at Mr Money Moustache we could learn how to appreciate his lack of complaining. Simply Do.

Yes, of course I know who Pol Pot was. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to kill “the people in the universities” in particular.

Also, I think you might be being just a tad dramatic.

I am being floral in my language, I doubt I write well enough to be dramatic. The "people in the universities" angle is a (well worn) idea accusing western feminism of being a "make work" project for otherwise unemployable writers and academics. It has been argued by some that counting angels on pin heads is not the most productive thing to do. However in my opinion (& to go back to Pol Pot) inventing new words and arguing about them is probably not such a bad thing for those persuasive, charismatic, and creatives types to  do, when you consider the revolting acts of other "thought leaders" over history.  The occasional eye-roll dished out by some nth wave feminist isn't going to hurt anybody.

[nnls]

No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive. 

It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive.  Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.

I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.

I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.

Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.

Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.

So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.   

[yakamashii]

No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive. 

It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive.  Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.

I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.

I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.

Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.

Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.

So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.   

I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining ShittyAsiandriving is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.

ShittyAsiandriving is not starting from the assumption that anytime a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.

ShittyAsiandriving is a specific action, driving poorly.

So it's a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some people of Asian descent find it offensive because its called ShittyAsiandriving, but no where in the definition of it does it say that people of Asian descent can't drive safely, or that every person of Asian descent does this, or that every time a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.

Aside from the history and the magnitude of the ramifications for the parties being stereotyped against (here, people of Asian descent vs men), I don't see much of a difference. That difference in magnitude is significant, and is a large part of the reason for the need to define the phenomenon, but I don't think it excuses the blatant stereotyping, or dismisses the implication of the stereotype out of hand.

To say that the term mansplaining is offensive is not to deny the existence of the behavior. The behavior exists, and it sucks. Condescension happens to everybody, but is done to women by men disproportionately. I'd be surprised if there were data that showed otherwise. I'm angered by the experiences of Kris and others I've heard offline, and disgusted by icky "he was just being friendly/extroverted/insert-benign-adjective-here" responses like OPAAT's.

However, I don't see how any of that justifies the very behavior that is being called out.

[nnls]

No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive. 

It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive.  Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.

I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.

I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.

Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.

Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.

So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.   

I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining ShittyAsiandriving is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.

ShittyAsiandriving is not starting from the assumption that anytime a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.

ShittyAsiandriving is a specific action, driving poorly.

So it's a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some people of Asian descent find it offensive because its called ShittyAsiandriving, but no where in the definition of it does it say that people of Asian descent can't drive safely, or that every person of Asian descent does this, or that every time a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.

Aside from the history and the magnitude of the ramifications for the parties being stereotyped against (here, people of Asian descent vs men), I don't see much of a difference. That difference in magnitude is significant, and is a large part of the reason for the need to define the phenomenon, but I don't think it excuses the blatant stereotyping, or dismisses the implication of the stereotype out of hand.

To say that the term mansplaining is offensive is not to deny the existence of the behavior. The behavior exists, and it sucks. Condescension happens to everybody, but is done to women by men disproportionately. I'd be surprised if there were data that showed otherwise. I'm angered by the experiences of Kris and others I've heard offline, and disgusted by icky "he was just being friendly/extroverted/insert-benign-adjective-here" responses like OPAAT's.

However, I don't see how any of that justifies the very behavior that is being called out.

once again I see that like "Jewed", people I know will see people of any ethnicity or an unknown ethnicity (you cant see the driver of the car cause they are in front of you) and say they are "driving like an Asian" which once again is going off the assumption that all Asians drive badly, so to drive badly is to drive like an Asian

if any time anyone spoke condescendingly to anyone we called in mansplaining then that would be sexist, cause it would imply only men can talk down to people.

Mansplaining is specifically men talking down to woman because they believe woman dont understand or have inferior knowledge to men. So men talking down to woman in a sexist way.

I understand that you can use condescending or patronising or mansplaining in some cases interchangeably. But mansplaining is a very specific situation. For example it doesnt cover a younger person  talking down to a senior citizen because they assume all old people dont know anything, we could make up a word for that youthsplaining, but I am not sure if it is a common enough problem that a word has been generated for it.

[former player]

Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).

Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.

All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive.  You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive.  I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive.  But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.

There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words.  I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not.  The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd.  If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there.  Thanks.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive. 

It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive.  Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.

I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.

I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.

Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.

Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.

So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.

To me, I don't think the argument that it doesn't mean all men, means it's inherently not offensive, and this is why. I don't have a perfect single offensive word example, but I have a concept example. I had a friend at college that said "not all women are bad drivers, but most bad drivers are women." Now granted, she could say that, and I wasn't about to call her offensive. If I had said that, I would have certainly understood women saying that was offensive.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).

Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.

All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive.  You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive.  I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive.  But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.

There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words.  I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not.  The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd.  If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there.  Thanks.

Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?

[Kris]

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off,  I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well  some Jews really  do rip people off . This term cool?

The reason that patronizing is not used, is that mansplaining is a specific, man explaining or talking down to a woman, which has quite a bit of cultural baggage associate with it. So no, women can't mansplain and men don't mansplain to other men, by definition. I've never heard someone tell a guy they are pms-ing.   ETA I looked up the word and a man can mansplain to another man.

The above argument would work, except that men are not a minority.

I would be perfectly happy to give up the word mansplaining, if all other derogatory terms for women were also relegated to the dustbin. What? Not happening?

There isn't a list of acceptable or taboo words that works for all members of a sub-group.  It sounds like you are just weaponizing the term mansplaining while waiting on others to get to what you personally consider a correct level of usage for other words.  That's noble in a sense if you can get critical mass as a result of the method making it dawn on others faster - but until that point you might just be contributing to the usage of words that humans don't like.

I personally don't feel it's about keeping score or making concessions once others do, the platinum rule works better for me than the golden rule.

Given that I just got told to kill myself I think that there clearly are taboo words that trigger some folks here. My contention was that the common use of "mansplaining" referred to behaviour amongst acquaintances or colleagues and not strangers. For that opinion I failed some purity test and am condemned to die. I'm thinking that Pol Pot had some good ideas when it came to dealing with the people in the universities.

Um...

What?

Pol Pot was a class hero who ended pointless arguments about the definitions of words with concrete actions. The ultimate face punch, if you will. I would have thought that here at Mr Money Moustache we could learn how to appreciate his lack of complaining. Simply Do.

Yes, of course I know who Pol Pot was. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to kill “the people in the universities” in particular.

Also, I think you might be being just a tad dramatic.

I am being floral in my language, I doubt I write well enough to be dramatic. The "people in the universities" angle is a (well worn) idea accusing western feminism of being a "make work" project for otherwise unemployable writers and academics. It has been argued by some that counting angels on pin heads is not the most productive thing to do. However in my opinion (& to go back to Pol Pot) inventing new words and arguing about them is probably not such a bad thing for those persuasive, charismatic, and creatives types to  do, when you consider the revolting acts of other "thought leaders" over history.  The occasional eye-roll dished out by some nth wave feminist isn't going to hurt anybody.

Lol. I like it when you talk. You do an awful lot of arguing for the other side.

[yakamashii]

No one yet in this thread has managed a logical and convincing explanation of why "mansplaining" is offensive. 

It appears to be agreed that 1) the action described by the word is a real thing, and 2) the action so described is offensive.  Why the word is so much more offensive than the action that it cannot be used to describe that action has not been explained.

I've seen a lot of "well, it's talking about a bad action, not saying all people do that." Really.......? Numerous points have been mentioned here that haven't been refuted. Hey, I "Jewed" that guy down. Hmm, let's break it apart with those arguments for saying mansplaining is fine. Talking about something negative? Yep. Using a group moniker in it? Yep. Describing a specific negative action and not against a group of people? I know when I used this in the past, I certainly wasn't meaning all Jews were stingy. I didn't even know what it meant when someone told me why it was offensive. I hadn't made the connection in my 12 year old brain when I'd heard it from someone else. Was it still offensive to Jewish people despite the fact that I didn't mean it to imply all Jewish people have this negative action? Certainly.

I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.

Mansplaining is not starting from the assumption that anytime a man talks to a woman he is explaining something in a condescending way.

Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isnt necessary.

So its a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some men find it offensive because its called mansplaining, but no where in the definition of it does it say that men cant explain things to woman, or that every man does this, or that every time a man explains anything to woman he is mansplaining.   

I think part of the difference for "Jewed" and mansplaining ShittyAsiandriving is "Jewed" is going on a stereotype that all Jewish people are cheap.

ShittyAsiandriving is not starting from the assumption that anytime a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.

ShittyAsiandriving is a specific action, driving poorly.

So it's a newly created word used to describe a particular phenomena that has been going on for a long time but now has a word. Like how the word selfie was created. Now some people of Asian descent find it offensive because its called ShittyAsiandriving, but no where in the definition of it does it say that people of Asian descent can't drive safely, or that every person of Asian descent does this, or that every time a person of Asian descent drives a car they are driving poorly.

Aside from the history and the magnitude of the ramifications for the parties being stereotyped against (here, people of Asian descent vs men), I don't see much of a difference. That difference in magnitude is significant, and is a large part of the reason for the need to define the phenomenon, but I don't think it excuses the blatant stereotyping, or dismisses the implication of the stereotype out of hand.

To say that the term mansplaining is offensive is not to deny the existence of the behavior. The behavior exists, and it sucks. Condescension happens to everybody, but is done to women by men disproportionately. I'd be surprised if there were data that showed otherwise. I'm angered by the experiences of Kris and others I've heard offline, and disgusted by icky "he was just being friendly/extroverted/insert-benign-adjective-here" responses like OPAAT's.

However, I don't see how any of that justifies the very behavior that is being called out.

once again I see that like "Jewed", people I know will see people of any ethnicity or an unknown ethnicity (you cant see the driver of the car cause they are in front of you) and say they are "driving like an Asian" which once again is going off the assumption that all Asians drive badly, so to drive badly is to drive like an Asian

if any time anyone spoke condescendingly to anyone we called in mansplaining then that would be sexist, cause it would imply only men can talk down to people.

Mansplaining is specifically men talking down to woman because they believe woman dont understand or have inferior knowledge to men. So men talking down to woman in a sexist way.

I understand that you can use condescending or patronising or mansplaining in some cases interchangeably. But mansplaining is a very specific situation. For example it doesnt cover a younger person  talking down to a senior citizen because they assume all old people dont know anything, we could make up a word for that youthsplaining, but I am not sure if it is a common enough problem that a word has been generated for it.

I see a problem here. I said "ShittyAsiandriving is a specific action, driving poorly" without naming the actor because I copied your sentence structure (you didn't name the actor when you said "Mansplaining is a specific action, explaining something to a woman when it isn't necessary.").

I meant "ShittyAsiandriving is a specific action, a person of Asian descent driving poorly" as I think you meant "Mansplaining is a specific action, a man explaining something to a woman when it isn't necessary."

You think it's okay to use "mansplaining" to describe the specific action of a man explaining something to a woman when it isn't necessary. Given the above, though, do you also think it's okay to use "ShittyAsiandriving" to describe the specific action of a person of Asian descent driving poorly? Why or why not?

And if not, how is the presence of "man" in mansplaining different from the presence of "Asian" in ShittyAsiandriving? (I'm looking for reasons other than the magnitude of the damage in light of history; I'm not under the illusion that men stand to suffer as much as people of Asian descent in America in this exercise, or any other minority group in any other)

[former player]

Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).

Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.

All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive.  You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive.  I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive.  But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.

There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words.  I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not.  The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd.  If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there.  Thanks.

Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?

OK, I've now worked my way through that rather dense paragraph.  Once again you are not starting from first principles (ie the meaning of "mansplaining") but working from references to politically incorrect speech (pow-wow and spirit animal) that even as used in this thread have no bearing on the meaning of mansplaining, and which would be entirely ineffective analogies for mansplaining even if intended in that way.  You then quite rightly point out that there is no good defence for using"Jewed", with which I agree as it is based on an inaccurate and offensive racial stereotype.   Unfortunately I can't see anything in your paragraph which, starting from logical first principles and without relying wholly on flawed analogies, sets out why "mansplaining" is sexist.

[neo von retorch]

sexist: "relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender: a sexist remark; sexist advertising."

It's easy to call "mansplaining" sexist. That's probably correct by definition.

My opinion is that the problem here is that the oppressors (privileged classes) whining about sexist remarks that target them as a way to divert blame and responsibility.

oppressor: "a person or group of people that is treating another person or group of people cruelly or unfairly."

(I don't think it's hard to argue that privileged classes treat women and minorities unfairly, consciously and unconsciously.)

[PizzaSteve]

Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).

Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.

All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive.  You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive.  I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive.  But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.

There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words.  I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not.  The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd.  If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there.  Thanks.

Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?

OK, I've now worked my way through that rather dense paragraph.  Once again you are not starting from first principles (ie the meaning of "mansplaining") but working from references to politically incorrect speech (pow-wow and spirit animal) that even as used in this thread have no bearing on the meaning of mansplaining, and which would be entirely ineffective analogies for mansplaining even if intended in that way.  You then quite rightly point out that there is no good defence for using"Jewed", with which I agree as it is based on an inaccurate and offensive racial stereotype.   Unfortunately I can't see anything in your paragraph which, starting from logical first principles and without relying wholly on flawed analogies, sets out why "mansplaining" is sexist.

I think it is because the action of mansplaining only applies to specific men who are condescending to women, not all men, unless you are saying all men do it.  Since the term refers to men in general, he seems to be drawing an analogy that thise situations should be treated equally.

I dont really have a chip in the semantics game, but agree with an earlier post that more or less said it is a mildly offensive term that is also useful, because the behavior exists and should be discouraged.

That said, it would seem the term is at least offensive to some people, with several posts as evidence.  Maybe it is not offensive to you, but they seem to not like it, which to me is the bar required.  A priori it is at the least offensive to some people.  While one can argue they are too sensitive, that is another debate.  The usefullness of an offensive term may fully justify its use IMHO, sort of like facist is still used for neo facists, even if offensive to some. Anyway, just a thought.

*  Is this post manspaining a prior post?

[GuitarStv]

I feel like this thread has gone completely off the rails . . . so, let me throw my two cents in.  :P

I have a general rule for figures of speech like this (or like people using 'entree' improperly as was mentioned waaaaaay upthread somewhere).  I try to be more careful about terms used when they are terms that target minority groups, or groups that have historically been oppressed.  'Mansplain' doesn't really bother me because:
- While not all guys do it . . . I've only seen it done by men.  I've never seen a woman do it.
- While it's also true that it could be considered unfair or annoying to some men, men are not dis-empowered by use of the term.  Hearing my wife say that a dude 'mansplained' something to her the other day doesn't change the fact that we live in a society where things are tilted (sometimes heavily) towards men having more power, making more money, and being in leadership roles.

[neo von retorch]

I feel like this thread has gone completely off the rails . . . so, let me throw my two cents in.  :P

I have a general rule for figures of speech like this (or like people using 'entree' improperly as was mentioned waaaaaay upthread somewhere).  I try to be more careful about terms used when they are terms that target minority groups, or groups that have historically been oppressed.  'Mansplain' doesn't really bother me because:
- While not all guys do it . . . I've only seen it done by men.  I've never seen a woman do it.
- While it's also true that it could be considered unfair or annoying to some men, men are not dis-empowered by use of the term.  Hearing my wife say that a dude 'mansplained' something to her the other day doesn't change the fact that we live in a society where things are tilted (sometimes heavily) towards men having more power, making more money, and being in leadership roles.

Yup - pretty much what my three posts were about. (Though I think I was completely ignored. Ha ;) I comfort myself by thinking that I'm just too factual and non-controversial, so no one responds to me. It would be boring to say "yeah." But maybe I'm SO wrong that no one can even think of how to respond. Dang it, now I have four posts to delete.)

[Kris]

I feel like this thread has gone completely off the rails . . . so, let me throw my two cents in.  :P

I have a general rule for figures of speech like this (or like people using 'entree' improperly as was mentioned waaaaaay upthread somewhere).  I try to be more careful about terms used when they are terms that target minority groups, or groups that have historically been oppressed.  'Mansplain' doesn't really bother me because:
- While not all guys do it . . . I've only seen it done by men.  I've never seen a woman do it.
- While it's also true that it could be considered unfair or annoying to some men, men are not dis-empowered by use of the term.  Hearing my wife say that a dude 'mansplained' something to her the other day doesn't change the fact that we live in a society where things are tilted (sometimes heavily) towards men having more power, making more money, and being in leadership roles.

Yup - pretty much what my three posts were about. (Though I think I was completely ignored. Ha ;) I comfort myself by thinking that I'm just too factual and non-controversial, so no one responds to me. It would be boring to say "yeah." But maybe I'm SO wrong that no one can even think of how to respond. Dang it, now I have four posts to delete.)

I just want to say a heartfelt thank you to the reasonable men on this thread. Because, just as in the "real" world, your voices tend to have more "weight" in this conversation than the voices of women who often feel like we're yelling into the wind.

[neo von retorch]

Shucks @Kris and @Malkynn, now the thread's all about me. More inline with what I'm used to!

See, I couldn't resist whining about my comments not getting attention or response (but you already knew that).

[Kris]

Shucks @Kris and @Malkynn, now the thread's all about me. More inline with what I'm used to!

See, I couldn't resist whining about my comments not getting attention or response (but you already knew that).

Ha!

You’re good people, @neo von retorch .

[partgypsy]

Shucks @Kris and @Malkynn, now the thread's all about me. More inline with what I'm used to!

See, I couldn't resist whining about my comments not getting attention or response (but you already knew that).

: )

[mm1970]

Mansplaining is not offensive.

The patriarchal men think/assume they know more than women. They talk over them and condescend them.

It's a made-up word that concisely identifies an offensive behavior that reflects the existing systemic problem.

Men are not oppressed or held back by the systemic problems that affect women and minorities. While they can decide inside their head that they don't like that their bad behavior has been given a pithy name, they don't have any legitimate platform to stand on to complain about it.

Fix the problem. Stop the bad behavior. You don't get to whine about not liking this word. It doesn't paint you (or all men) as "less than." It labels a bad behavior.

yes!

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).

Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.

All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive.  You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive.  I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive.  But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.

There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words.  I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not.  The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd.  If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there.  Thanks.

Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?

OK, I've now worked my way through that rather dense paragraph.  Once again you are not starting from first principles (ie the meaning of "mansplaining") but working from references to politically incorrect speech (pow-wow and spirit animal) that even as used in this thread have no bearing on the meaning of mansplaining, and which would be entirely ineffective analogies for mansplaining even if intended in that way.  You then quite rightly point out that there is no good defence for using"Jewed", with which I agree as it is based on an inaccurate and offensive racial stereotype.   Unfortunately I can't see anything in your paragraph which, starting from logical first principles and without relying wholly on flawed analogies, sets out why "mansplaining" is sexist.

Let me try this one more time. If this doesn't come through, I'm not sure how to be any clearer than this.

If you're going to have a discussion, you have to have a common frame of reference. Don't know if you'd call this logic first, but it's pretty much the basis for any conversation with anyone. If I call an apple an orange, we can't talk about the concept of apples and make any sense. That's why I kept going back to what people were calling offensive...because that's the frame of reference I'm using. It's the frame of reference for a word being offensive as it's used in this thread.

The frame of reference given the examples I keep giving is this: to be offensive, it must offend someone. To be a little bit more specific for this thread, it must be offensive and relate to a group of people (not a personal insult but something somehow tied to a group). Again, not sure how to be any clearer than this, but mansplaining offends some men - offense part checked off, men (a group) - group part checked off. Many people would have a more restrictive bar for something to be offensive related to bigotry or whatever term we want to call something that offends people who are part of a group, but that's the bar that's been set and that's why I keep referencing the examples used above. The same people calling something offensive with that definition are saying mansplaining is not offensive. That's pretty much the gist of it.

(This is not directly to former player) Sorry if I'm not being reasonable to some people. Believe it or not, I meant the things I said about believing that women are being oppressed and hurt all the time. I've worked with young men in different settings due to some volunteer work, and it's boggled my mind the way that many view women as objects. I've tried to speak into that to redirect their perspectives as best I can. I'm also a person who has had their views on this change over the years from where I was ignorant to many of these things to where I am trying to see it better now. I'll say this from my perspective, it's doing no favors to try to help people coming at it from my perspective when people who are trying to open other people's eyes towards this make illogical arguments and seem to brush off genuine discussions as to why they're not being logically consistent about it. Let me say to people who have gone through these challenges: I know, of course, that you don't owe me anything. I'm an anonymous guy on the internet. But...if you're really trying to help people who are open to having their views changed and not to talk in an echo chamber to the guys that you feel are good (the ones that are wholeheartedly on board with everything you're saying)....this isn't helping.

[PKFFW]

I'll give my 5 cents on the mansplaining thing.

First - Yes it happens.  A lot.  It should stop but humans being humans none of us will live to see the day that it does is my prediction.
Second - I'm not personally offended.  I live by the rule "if someone spits on you, they don't make you angry, they make you wet".  I choose not to get angry or offended by silly words.  If other men choose to be offended by it, that's their choice but I would advise them to be like the duck and let water roll off their back. ;-)
Third - If anyone thinks the word mansplaining is only ever used "to describe a specific action being done by a specific person" and never used as a means to shut down conversation or as a general insult they are kidding themselves.
Fourth - It is point three that has changed the word from a simple description of an action to being an offensive generality.
Fifth - That is the way of language.  It changes.  Mansplaining began as a word used to describe a specific action being done by a specific person and whilst still very often used in that way, it is now also very often used as an insult in many situations, often simply because the person using the word disagrees with the one being described by the word and not because any actual mansplaining has taken place.  There are countless other examples of the changing nature of language and its use.

[former player]

Wanted to weigh in on this one, because to me, it's exactly the opposite. No one has explained how mainsplaining would not be offensive under the definitions as defined at the beginning of this thread of what is offensive (with the possible exception of one thing I'll mention at the end of this).

Do please provide a reference to the definition of "offensive" you are referring to - this is a long thread that started out on a different topic altogether so your reference to "the beginning of this thread" isn't a sufficiently precise reference.

All your examples for "mansplaining" being offensive start from the assumption that "mansplaining" is offensive.  You then go on to raise and refute reasons as to why it is not offensive.  I hope you can see that this is starting the argument from the wrong place - instead of putting forward arguments to the effect that "mansplaining" is offensive you have put forward arguments that defences to its being offensive do not refute that it is offensive.  But you have put forward no arguments as to why the word itself is offensive to start with.

There are so many words in the English language - whole dictionaries full of words.  I know of no reputable argument that all of these words are per se offensive and the obligation is to prove that they are not.  The proposition is not just illogical, it is absurd.  If you are to advance this discussion and to show that the word is offensive you need to start from first principles and use a logical progression from there.  Thanks.

Certainly. I made two mistakes in the post. One was to not specifically define why it was offensive. I guess I thought one of the middle paragraphs did that, but let me be specific. The other was to say definition at the beginning of the post. I should have said implied definition based on examples used. The reason I found this whole thing funny is that early in the divergence of this topic onto the concept of terms people threw out multiple terms as offensive to be used- pow wow and spirit animal being the two biggest stretches. The reasoning behind this was so loose that it was simply - it tied to a group of ____ people and some of them considered it offensive. ____ was, of course, oppressed, etc. (the oppressed part being the reason I asked everyone to actually use in my argument because it was the only difference between mansplaining and their terms). With such a loose definition, mansplaining, in a way, is even more extreme because it ties to a group of people and actually calls out a negative thing done (the negative part being worse because, well, it's a group and something used to criticize). So per those very loose "rules" mansplaining can be considered offensive because it ties to a group of people and some could find it offensive. It struck me as ironic when people argued against it because of the experiences they or other women had had that were examples of "mansplaining" not because I think they were lying or because their experiences weren't valid. It was because the very arguments typically used the other way would have hardly needed argument. Oh, I'm just using this term "Jewed" because I had a Jewish person who was stingy with me. No, that's not a valid reason for using a term, sorry. Again, the only difference I'm seeing is, men aren't oppressed, so it shouldn't hurt them as much or just suck it up. So why not say that?

OK, I've now worked my way through that rather dense paragraph.  Once again you are not starting from first principles (ie the meaning of "mansplaining") but working from references to politically incorrect speech (pow-wow and spirit animal) that even as used in this thread have no bearing on the meaning of mansplaining, and which would be entirely ineffective analogies for mansplaining even if intended in that way.  You then quite rightly point out that there is no good defence for using"Jewed", with which I agree as it is based on an inaccurate and offensive racial stereotype.   Unfortunately I can't see anything in your paragraph which, starting from logical first principles and without relying wholly on flawed analogies, sets out why "mansplaining" is sexist.

Let me try this one more time. If this doesn't come through, I'm not sure how to be any clearer than this.

If you're going to have a discussion, you have to have a common frame of reference. Don't know if you'd call this logic first, but it's pretty much the basis for any conversation with anyone. If I call an apple an orange, we can't talk about the concept of apples and make any sense. That's why I kept going back to what people were calling offensive...because that's the frame of reference I'm using. It's the frame of reference for a word being offensive as it's used in this thread.

The frame of reference given the examples I keep giving is this: to be offensive, it must offend someone. To be a little bit more specific for this thread, it must be offensive and relate to a group of people (not a personal insult but something somehow tied to a group). Again, not sure how to be any clearer than this, but mansplaining offends some men - offense part checked off, men (a group) - group part checked off. Many people would have a more restrictive bar for something to be offensive related to bigotry or whatever term we want to call something that offends people who are part of a group, but that's the bar that's been set and that's why I keep referencing the examples used above. The same people calling something offensive with that definition are saying mansplaining is not offensive. That's pretty much the gist of it.

(This is not directly to former player) Sorry if I'm not being reasonable to some people. Believe it or not, I meant the things I said about believing that women are being oppressed and hurt all the time. I've worked with young men in different settings due to some volunteer work, and it's boggled my mind the way that many view women as objects. I've tried to speak into that to redirect their perspectives as best I can. I'm also a person who has had their views on this change over the years from where I was ignorant to many of these things to where I am trying to see it better now. I'll say this from my perspective, it's doing no favors to try to help people coming at it from my perspective when people who are trying to open other people's eyes towards this make illogical arguments and seem to brush off genuine discussions as to why they're not being logically consistent about it. Let me say to people who have gone through these challenges: I know, of course, that you don't owe me anything. I'm an anonymous guy on the internet. But...if you're really trying to help people who are open to having their views changed and not to talk in an echo chamber to the guys that you feel are good (the ones that are wholeheartedly on board with everything you're saying)....this isn't helping.

Not all men are mansplainers.  Just as not all men are rapists.   Why would a man who is not a rapist be offended by the statement "some men are rapists"?  Why would a man who is not a manplainer be offended by the statement "some men are mansplainers"?

I haven't ever come across the statement "all men are mansplainers", and the dictionaries do not appear to define the word as a generalised insult.  If I did come across that general statement I would say that it was an incorrect generalisation that should be corrected.  What if a man chose to be offended by such a general statement rather than to try a polite correction and move on?  There has been a long history of men weaponizing "taking offence" at women's attempts to right systemic societal wrongs, so I would probably conclude that the same was happening here, and that a man who wished to wallow in that supposed offence is not an ally of women.

[golden1]

This is so hilarious to me.

Women, for pretty much all of history, tend to get talked over by aggressive men.  This is so common that women come up with a word to describe it.

Men complain about how offensive that word is and completely disregard the behavior that led women to come up with that word.  Now the focus is on their own feelings and how offended they are.

Women try to explain why they came up with that word and again men shift the focus to their own feelings and butthurt about it.

Men are literally mansplaining their mansplaining in this thread....I swear to god....you can’t write comedy this good.

[thd7t]

This is so hilarious to me.

Women, for pretty much all of history, tend to get talked over by aggressive men.  This is so common that women come up with a word to describe it.

Men complain about how offensive that word is and completely disregard the behavior that led women to come up with that word.  Now the focus is on their own feelings and how offended they are.

Women try to explain why they came up with that word and again men shift the focus to their own feelings and butthurt about it.

Men are literally mansplaining their mansplaining in this thread....I swear to god....you can’t write comedy this good.

This is the summation of this thread!  Totally excellent!

[Davnasty]

This is so hilarious to me.

Women, for pretty much all of history, tend to get talked over by aggressive men.  This is so common that women come up with a word to describe it.

Men complain about how offensive that word is and completely disregard the behavior that led women to come up with that word.  Now the focus is on their own feelings and how offended they are.

Women try to explain why they came up with that word and again men shift the focus to their own feelings and butthurt about it.

Men are literally mansplaining their mansplaining in this thread....I swear to god....you can’t write comedy this good.

This is an unfair statement. Sure, there have been a few jerks who seem to be minimizing the behavior but most of the arguments against the word have recognized the behavior, pointed out that they aren't personally offended, and then gone on to either A) say it's a harmful word because it does offend some other people (which it does, right or wrong) or B) it is technically a stereotyping term, which it is. It fits the same mold as words like "jewed". There are a number of commenters denying this which is very odd to me as I know from other threads that these same posters can be highly logical and well reasoned.

One more issue brought up by PKFFW (5) is that the term is more and more being used to mean things other than its original purpose. Other uses include, "I disagree with you and you're a man" or "men explaining anything, condescending or not". That wouldn't be a problem except that as soon as the accused tries to argue that he's not being condescending he only digs deeper into the hole of looking like a jackass. In fact this is the way you've used it here. Most (again most, not all) of the men in this thread have been treading very lightly and making well reasoned arguments and yet you accuse them of mansplaining and laugh off their attempts at meaningful discourse. This word has gained power and that power is being used, sometimes fairly and other times unfairly.

Up thread, an article by Jessica Bates was presented to show that some women recognize the word as harmful but this was written off as one person's opinion. Here are five more women who agree.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/it-s-man-s-and-woman-s-world/201603/the-psychology-mansplaining

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-daum-mansplaining-20150108-column.html

https://medium.com/@Kurayami/the-problem-with-the-term-mansplaining-58ca7e901755

https://www.villainesse.com/think/why-mansplaining-needs-die

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-turner/mansplaining-and-womanspl_b_9995262.html

I've only skimmed through them so far, but I will read them when I have a chance later today.

[GuitarStv]

It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".

This comparison is quite poor.

'Mansplaining' refers to the currently common occurrence of the currently (and historically) dominant and more powerful group overstepping bounds, it's typically used to draw attention to undesirable behaviour.

'Jewed' refers to a historically weaker and oppressed group, and was used as propaganda to incite and legitimize violence against this group in the past, it stems from ancient medieval times when Catholics were prohibited from charging interest by biblical interpretion and followers of Judaism were not.

That's quite a big difference being overlooked.

[Davnasty]

It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".

This comparison is quite poor.

'Mansplaining' refers to the currently common occurrence of the currently (and historically) dominant and more powerful group overstepping bounds, it's typically used to draw attention to undesirable behaviour.

'Jewed' refers to a historically weaker and oppressed group, and was used as propaganda to incite and legitimize violence against this group in the past, it stems from ancient medieval times when Catholics were prohibited from charging interest by biblical interpret ion and followers of Judaism were not.

That's quite a big difference being overlooked.

I acknowledge they are quite different in origin and usage. My meaning when I said they fit the same mold is purely from a technical linguistic standpoint. The word connects a group of people with a negative action. I didn't fully explain that here but I think it was addressed earlier?

Anyway, I should have made clear I am not suggesting that these terms are equivalent. Definitely not.

[neo von retorch]

Yes. Saying "mansplaining is offensive" sure seems to be a tool used to distract from the bad behavior of the dominant group.

I can't say for certain whether the existence or usage of the word moves the collective group of humanity towards equality between genders, race and other properties of humans we often use to differentiate each other (and, when possible, to get disproportionate benefits.)

I can say with reasonable certainty that focusing on this word removes us from a conversation about all of the injustices that are propagated and performed, and let's us argue semantics.

We saw some initial conversations about how we can do better and I would love to see more of that.

* Rule should leave little to subjectivity
* Rules should be enforced consistently, as objectively as possible

What else?

[former player]

It fits the same mold as words like "jewed".

This comparison is quite poor.

'Mansplaining' refers to the currently common occurrence of the currently (and historically) dominant and more powerful group overstepping bounds, it's typically used to draw attention to undesirable behaviour.

'Jewed' refers to a historically weaker and oppressed group, and was used as propaganda to incite and legitimize violence against this group in the past, it stems from ancient medieval times when Catholics were prohibited from charging interest by biblical interpret ion and followers of Judaism were not.

That's quite a big difference being overlooked.

I acknowledge they are quite different in origin and usage. My meaning when I said they fit the same mold is purely from a technical linguistic standpoint. The word connects a group of people with a negative action. I didn't fully explain that here but I think it was addressed earlier?

Anyway, I should have made clear I am not suggesting that these terms are equivalent. Definitely not.

The two terms do not fit the same mold at all.  One uses a cliched slur against a racial group to describe undesirable behaviour.  The other directly describes undesirable behaviour.