1077
2hot2handle (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
228 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

I'm sorry, it's gotten late here, is your basis for claiming it as an anti-intellectual term really just that the word is a malformed portmanteau?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    There are several parts of the word’s meaning, some of them optional:

    1. man explaining thing to woman
    2. poorly / incorrectly
    3. dismissively
    4. that she already knows
    5. to someone who knows more about it

    But the only real requirement is #1. Despite what anyone says, even if the thing is not explained dismissively and is explained well to someone who doesn’t know about it, you could still call it mansplaining because it’s punching up. Which again only serves to say that attempting to explain is the shameful part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Punching up again. You keep using that word, and I don't think it means what I think it means. You're using it as a stand-in for asserting inherent superiority over another person, but correcting someone on the internet does not actually imply that. You're trying to present it as an inherently hateful and cruel act, and it's still not. You even present that it's not, in this very comment.

    But the only real requirement is #1

    Why? No, seriously, who says? You're the one making that claim here, and you appear to be the only one doing that. Why is that the only real requirement, and why does it conflict with all the broadly accepted definitions (including the one you just provided)?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent