Re girls only

No no, the point isn't that *all* men are condescending, not at all. The point is that it's a certain kind of condescending which is deeply attached to male privilege.

Like, if one says that "prostate cancer is a male disease" it doesn't mean that all males have it! It means that it's a disease that 99% affects Cis men because of the structure of male anatomy?

(Cis meaning not Trans or intersex, biologically male and gendered male - sorry if this is more terminology bug just in case)

Misandrist = derogatory towards or showing hatred of men as a group. It's what a lot of ppl might call "reverse sexism" except the problem with that is that the term "Sexism" implies not just hatred of women (misogyny) but also a systematic and structural inequality that goes beyond individual prejudice. I know, it's complicated. Learning is good! :)

^^ That was a very clear explanation, FT, full of fine-grained distinctions which most people lack proper terminology to distinguish among. I am a bit unclear on one minor distinction, though. Would it be correct to say that the difference between 'mansplaining' and 'explaining' is that the first is an unsought and the second a requested explanation -- or does the difference lie elsewhere?

I don't think it's the difference between unsought/requested, it's the privilege gradient and assumption of automatic authority on the part of the 'Splainer that's problematic. It's that assumption in the mind of the Splainer, that the man always knows what they are talking about, and the woman doesn't, even and *especially* if what they talking about is something that the woman actually knows a heck of a lot more about, such as, for example, the fundamental differences of women's experiences from what men typically expect.

And funnily enough, while you were typing that question, I wrote out this big whole long post about what I mean by "privilege" which I shall now submit.

"Male Privilege" and indeed "Privilege" in this sense itself, is another term that could probably do with some explanation and clarification - I know of a fantastic resource on it, but unfortunately it's at work and (fortunately) I am not right now.

Because it's often incorrectly interpreted as being about an individual thing, and so people who are the beneficiary of Privilege will complain "but *I* don't get that! I have had individual experiences where that didn't apply!" when it's something that's structurally applied to a whole class or type or people (and against another whole class or category.) This is what raises a prejudice to an actual -ism like Sexism or Racism - the structural aspect.

And the thing is, people who have been the beneficiary of Privilege for their entire lives often interpret the *removal* of that Privilege as being "OMG reverse prejudice!" (which is another reason that I don't like using terms like "reverse sexism" and prefer misandry)

Privilege operates like... you want to go to a gig, but the venue has a policy that anyone wearing a suit automatically goes to the front of the queue and gets let in first, no matter how many other people are queuing. If you're not wearing a suit, you're out of luck, you have to go to the back of the really long-ass annoying queue and wait for so long that by the time you get in, all of the good seats are taken and you end up standing way at the back behind a column. You've got so used the idea that ppl in suits go straight to the front that you no longer even see the queue, you just think of it as deserved, because hey, it's always been this way, and if those other people really wanted to get in first, they should just bootstrap themselves into suits.

Now imagine that one time, you turn up and you're not wearing a suit. And the bouncer says "nope, go to the back of the queue." And you kick up a stink going "don't you know who I am!?!" And you scream and howl and complain because you don't get to go in first, and what's more, people in actual ~blue jeans~ are being let into the club ahead of you. So you insist "Hey! I am being discriminated against!"

When what has happened is that no, you are not being discriminated against, you're just being made to get in the queue with everyone else, and experience the same treatment that most people who are not in your category *always* experience, as a matter of course.

Now imagine that "the suit" is something you can't actually take off or put on - such as your gender, or your race, or your sexuality, or your class, etc. etc. And "the cool club" is actually "decent jobs, university, media representation, seats on yr government, even dumb shit like 'being Excelsiored on ILX' etc. etc." And that bouncer is the whole package of engrained Racism, Sexism, structural privilege, etc.

I'm sure that most progressive type people already kinda grok this, so again, apologies if I'm SPLAINING stuff you all already know, but I'm just realising now how much I chuck these words around without ever clarifying what I mean by them.

But that assumption - that one automatically gets to go to the front of the "expert" and "taken seriously" queue because one is male, even when talking about the very *different* experiences of females - is what gives SPLAINING its teeth and raises it from just annoying to actually A Problem.

i love the word "mansplaining"; it's hilarious and i hear it in my head a lot since i encountered it and i always know exactly what it means. men are encouraged to be authorities and a lot of men get their egos groomed thusly and many times the most non-threatening way to perform this is in front of a kind-hearted pretty woman; if she complies (feigned or not), automatic ego stroke. when it isn't insidious it's merely pathetic, like a dog chasing a frisbee. i think a lot of women play with this to their advantage, which whatever, some men never learn.

me and my partner have a good friend and over time i've come to see just how much i do this! she's very funny and sort of forgiving about it in the end, but i try not to do it anymore because it's condescending and gross but it's also dishonest and disrespectful to myself as well. i'd rather be always learning -- by myself and with others -- than declaring myself an authority on something.

xpost

one rule of thumb for me personally is that if i'm explaining/explicating/talking about something with somebody, it has to be of benefit to me first before it can be of benefit to the person i'm having the conversation with. i'm explaining myself, i'm not explaining something to somebody. it allows me to focus on the topic at hand and the other person talking about it and helps keep my ego out of the picture.

haha i didn't explain that very well