We should talk about a common frustrating feeling. Many people recognize this situation right away. A man explains something to a woman dismissively. It feels like he assumes she cannot understand. This familiar moment has a specific name now. We often call this mansplaining, a very familiar term. It happens in meetings or sometimes at dinner parties.
This idea quickly spread into talks. It took hold fast on social media. Rebecca Solnit wrote a famous essay. Her story resonated deeply with women. The term mansplaining quickly gave this a name. Now women had a word for this feeling.
What do we mean by mansplaining, then? It means a man explains things condescendingly to women. The tone feels superior and dismissive too. The real issue is his deep assumption. He assumes she knows less just because she is a woman. This bias is the real problem here. The word is even in serious research now.
Remember that viral moment in 2022? Liz Truss called Rishi Sunak out then. She said he was aggressively mansplaining during a debate. He interrupted her twenty times in twelve minutes. Interruptions are not the only part of this behavior. But this shows communication breaking down quickly. It felt like a power dynamic happening live on TV.
Let’s revisit Rebecca Solnit’s famous story. She met a man who heard about her book. He started telling her about a very important book. He did not realize it was actually her own book. Solnit was the author, she told him. His disbelief showed that core assumption. He thought he knew more than the real expert.
Here is another amazing example to see. It involves NASA astronaut Jessica Meir. She shared a video from her space experience. A Twitter user decided to correct her facts. He explained basic physics in space to her. This was mansplaining space to a real astronaut. It shows bias where credentials are not enough.
These examples show one main type. This is called expertise-based mansplaining now. A man challenges a woman’s knowledge area. She has equal or more expertise in this area. Her qualifications or role show this clearly. The mansplainer dismisses her status as an expert. He states his own view as the real authority.
Mansplaining is not only about expertise, you know. There is another important type of it. This type comes from a woman’s lived experience. It is not from study or her profession necessarily. This is experience-based mansplaining, they call it. A man tries to explain her own reality now. He often dismisses or reframes what she knows.
Look at the Amanda Seales example now. She debated Steve Santagati about catcalling. Seales explained men objectify women, she feels. Santagati claimed he knew more as a man. He thought his view on women’s experience was better. This dismisses her lived reality clearly. This shows dismissing experience and adding bias.
Here is another example of this kind. It involves women who supported Hillary Clinton. They were called “vagina voters” in 2016. This was a condescending label given to them. It tried to dismiss their reasons why. People ignored they had shared experiences too. By using this label, men invalidated their voices.
Mansplaining can feel like just rudeness. Or maybe it is just lots of interruptions. Experts say it is a much deeper thing. It’s a specific kind of dynamic now. The mansplainer does not always know more. He acts from a feeling of entitlement. He assumes he is a better speaker and knower.
This is not always done consciously. The prejudice could be unconscious for them. It is often driven by social patterns. But the effect is still the same. A man assumes he knows more than a woman. Society often supports this assumption. It is like switching speaker and hearer roles.
Think how confusing this is for women. The mansplainer acts like the authority always. The woman is seen as one who does not know. These roles are hard to change, you see. When someone refutes your knowledge, it is difficult. You must use extra energy proving yourself. You just want to be seen as a credible speaker.
We should note pushback against this term. Some say it unfairly blames only men. Critics claim it is “reverse sexism.” Anyone can be rude or interrupt others. But studies show men speak more often. Men are more likely to interrupt women. The term captures this specific gendered dynamic.
Okay, we have a pretty good grasp on mansplaining by now. It is that truly frustrating dynamic you know very well. A man often explains things to a woman dismissively anyway. He assumes knowledge, often even when she is the expert. This behavior isn’t just interrupting someone by accident or rudeness. It stems from assumptions about a woman’s knowledge based just on her gender. Its consequences really stretch much farther beyond just one quick chat.
Researchers actually counted talk habits for women and men. They timed exactly who speaks and for how long in total. The findings pretty much remain consistent across study after study. Men tend to speak more often and for much longer periods. And they listen to the women just a bit less amount of time. Women get interrupted way more often, even sometimes by other women speakers. Mansplaining does this thing disproportionately directed always towards women.
Academic studies are slowly catching up on this topic. They view mansplaining as an action with very real effects. Going past just common simple ideas of rudeness or condescension. But the core issue it names remains quite real for many women. This style involves refuting a woman’s claim and then restating it next. An idea that a woman could not be an expert fully.
This sort of bias may be entirely unconscious in some situations, for sure. The actual effect on the woman is the exact same thing always. It makes the man the one with all knowledge now. This situation is not just about someone failing to hear you properly. Some people call this kind of thing “epistemic entitlement” instead. The woman gets cast as one who urgently needs some enlightening information.
Experts say this behavior causes harm to collectivity and relationships somehow. We should definitely talk about those two different kinds we mentioned before. When a man questions a woman’s knowledge in her work field. Even if her expertise appears extremely clear to everybody watching what happens. He is also doing harm to the broader public circle too, for sure. Our knowledge pool is worse because her expertise is ignored.
Mansplaining is not just a relationship problem or a mild bother. It’s a behavior deeply rooted in that sexist bias you see clearly. That diminishes women’s status significantly always, making things worse. Undermines their voices and also their experiences daily too, indeed. It actively hinders their equal participation in public life very much. By doing this, it causes collective harms that are very serious results. And how subtle biases have huge, significant consequences for us all.
Related posts:
The Antidemocratic Harms of Mansplaining
MansplaiNation
Gentlemen, I’m here to mansplain Dickens … okay?
