RE: Shower Philosophy: Mansplaining
Well said! I love the clear way you build arguments. (I taught rhetoric, so am fully elated to see structure and reasoning.)
People think their feels are more important than reality and truth.
People don't wish for honest and clear communication.
Somehow we have created a society in which every opinion is valid and when truth invalidates that opinion, the truth is somehow prejudiced against the feels of the person.
Yep, yep, and yep. I admit I love that Steemit isn't like that. Not yet and maybe never.
My understanding of "mansplaining" is that it is when someone disagrees so adamantly they assume their opponent to be uninformed and proceeds to condescendingly share the information assumed to be missing. Example:
A: "Wouldn't it be cool if Gary Johnson and Bernie Sanders teamed up?"
B: "That's completely impossible. how could you even think that?" (mansplaining ensues)
What do you think? Is that what mansplaining is?
I think it is meant to pertain to condescension, particularly the assumption that a man is condescending to a woman by assuming she is ignorant for being a woman.
However, one person may not know what another does or does not know. While it may be more tactful to ask about the knowledge of the other to better understand what information may or may not be missing, it is more efficient to simply break down the subject to its most basic parts and build up from there to the conclusion.
That said, while mansplaining is condescneding explanations based on assumptions founded in sexist bias, those who declare it tend to assume the intentions and biases of the people they rail against for it.
I condescend to everyone, so I take it personal when someone says I am mansplaining. I'm not. I just think most people are fucking stupid so I have developed the tact of assuming I have to explain shit to everyone.
Furthermore, it is used primarily as a way to invalidate a point being made by a man, particularly in discussin feminine issues or when talking to a female.
So while the term may have had its origins in a legitimate phenomenon; sexist condescension on the part of men(btw, women mansplain too, I know plenty of women that assume men are dumb dogs); its colloquial use and thus its generally accepted connotation and reception is twofold.
For those that use it, it has become that men have no right to explain things to women.
For those that witness or are targeted by it, it is a tactic to shut down contradictory arguments made by a man to a woman that cannot be readily refuted using facts or evidence.
Yes. Absolutely. This description nails it. Thank you!
BTW, I love the image of you explaining to someone that you are being condescending, not mansplaining. There should be a muppet for that.
As a female who believes in reason, I have to agree that "mansplaining" is still within the realm of reasoning. Though it may fall into any of the usual fallacies, depending on use, a condescending explanation by a man to a woman is still potentially a reasonable argument. Calling it "mansplaining" doesn't reduce its validity. It's impossible to say the same about emotional appeals, special pleading, or other fallacies which women in many times and cultures have been socially encouraged to use in place of reasoning.
But that's a whole 'nother topic. ;)