I've noticed something... [View all]

[rrneck]

If "mansplaining" is

To explain (something) condescendingly (to a female listener), especially to explain something the listener already knows, presuming that she has an inferior understanding of it because she is a woman.

What is this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022666059#post91

"as pointed out yesterday an example"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12591107#post2

boston bean explained to you quite clearly the difference between using 'gender' only and not also including sexism and misogyny. This has been talked about for some time now. You can find it on an old ATA here, you can probably find it in the dozens of posts in the Welcome thread Gormy Guss started to talk about this, you can also find it on the Meta threads if you have access.

It has been explained quite clearly, over and over.

I think we all realize this will not be the cure all, but not even trying it out is sending a really bad message.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12591107#post6

There will always be the exception and someone will go over the line and get banned for that, as you pointed out and as we all understand, but the Overall Unacceptability of posts like these is well understood. It is clear. As a bell.

These are just the three examples that I recall, but I seem to have run across it with fair regularity. I am wondering if the creation of a special type of condescension known as "mansplaining" was created to satisfy a market for developers of ideology to claim ownership of a type of human failing shared by both sexes? If that is the case, what human failings have been coopted for as an hommage to the male gender?