“Mansplaining,” commonly associated with a condescending and chauvinistic attitude, traditionally refers to situations where men unnecessarily and patronizingly explain things to women, often silencing their voices.
However, the term “mansplaining” has been extensively used in recent years to the point where it sometimes carries connotations of “reverse sexism.” It’s often employed without carefully considering the validity of men’s opinions, resulting in the dismissal or belittlement of their arguments. It’s worth noting that both men and women can internalize sexist beliefs and attitudes due to societal conditioning.
While it’s true that many men exhibit patronizing and rude behavior, assuming that such mannerisms are exclusively a male trait is an oversimplification. Contempt can be seen across genders; it’s a flaw that goes beyond gender boundaries. Men interrupt and talk down to each other in debates. Some individuals, regardless of gender, treat everyone with the same interrupting and condescending tone—it’s simply their communication style. Therefore, the communication issue lies in “human-splaining,” and making generalizations solely based on gender is unfair and unproductive.
Furthermore, the term “mansplaining” is often carelessly used out of frustration and anger, becoming a convenient way to dismiss any man expressing an opinion or insisting on a viewpoint during a debate.
Idea for Impact: Let’s reserve the label for situations where it’s genuinely warranted and instead focus on addressing the underlying issue of unequal valuing of men’s and women’s words. Let’s examine entitlement and the impact of patriarchal structures. Engaging in productive dialogue is far more effective than resorting to gratuitous dismissals.
Even after years of diversity initiatives in corporate America, “inclusion” is more about meeting the numbers on gender, race, and other obvious differences, and less about pursuing intellectual, ideological, pedagogical, and stylistic diversity within teams and organizations.