Unless the artist has explained what it means. What if it were the man who asked what it means and the woman explained? Would you discount the possibility that she was more familiar with the artist and had heard or read the artist’s explanation of the work? Or would you just dismiss it as “classic womansplaining”?
And even if it was his opinion, why assume he woudn’t be interested in hers as well?
Do we have an over/under yet on how many pages the thread will go until we’ve sufficiently mansplained that mansplaining doesn’t exist, and if it did then there’s never been an incidence of it, and if there has been it certainly wasn’t the one this woman is talking about, that all of the women give up on it once again and we can congratulate ourselves on having explained their experience to them so they could properly understand it? I’m thinking it won’t make 3.
Well, actually, different people see different numbers of posts per page depending on their settings, so first you must establish what a “page” is. (For me, a page is 200 posts.)
iswydt. 
:dubious: I can’t decide if this is serious or a pitch-perfect parody.
“Mansplaining” is a bullshit concept. Anyone of any gender can be patronizing. Gendering it in this way is superfluous and provides a hint that it’s not really about being irked by a patronizing attitude, but more of a frustration that intelligent men tend to be, on average, better at debate than equally intelligent women.
Sure, but what the term “mansplaining” references is the gender-specific fact that there is a huge honking heap of social reinforcement awarded to the particular phenomenon of men being patronizing to women.
Traditionally, men are supposed to be smart and authoritative, while women are supposed to be receptive, comparatively foolish and/or ignorant, and admiring of men’s superior knowledge. The social residue of this traditional viewpoint has the effect of giving men often unwarranted confidence that women need men to explain things to them.
Uh, no, it’s precisely about being irked by a specific kind of patronizing attitude that is boosted by that particular gendered type of social reinforcement.
Well, I readily concur at least that intelligent men tend to think they’re better at debate than equally intelligent women. But then, of course, they’re getting a whole lot of extra social reinforcement to help them believe that.
Well, there was this apple, see…
You mean like, instead of offering an actual refutation or counterargument. Yeah, I could see that too, though probably I wouldn’t block the other person. Blocking someone is a lot more aggressive than many people realize, and I think the OP’s relative overreacted.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Why would that seem like a parody? Do you not think artists ever explain the meaning of their work? Do you not think someone (of either sex) in an art gallery just might be familiar with the artist and want to share that information with someone who asked?
For that matter, (and this is, of course, at least somewhat farfetched) what if the man in the cartoon was the artist?
Also, what if the “joke” is that women are irrational creatures who ask questions but don’t really want to hear the answers?
Because it was a flawless rendition of bristling indignation at a perfectly reasonable explanation of how a particular cartoon (which I personally had no hand in creating and did not claim to be an authority on, btw) could be interpreted as a joke about the stereotypical phenomenon of “mansplaining”.
Very much in keeping with the stereotypical “mansplaining” mindset that men’s opinions should automatically be treated with deference, and it’s out of line ever to dismiss them as unwanted or unnecessary.
Wow, this just gets purer and purer. Yes, I think artists frequently explain the meaning of their work. Yes, I think someone in an art gallery, irrespective of sex, might be familiar with the artist’s work and want to share that information.
None of which changes my perfectly reasonable opinion that the intended joke in this particular cartoon is about a man officiously “mansplaining” his opinion of an unexplained artwork to a woman who wondered about its meaning, when he doesn’t really know anything more about its meaning than she does.
Or at least, that that is the interpretation of that cartoon which has caused it to be popularly regarded as an example of “mansplaining”, which is the bit that Spectre of Pithecanthropus, in the post I was replying to, said didn’t make sense to him.
You’ll have noticed from my use of the phrase “In this cartoon, I think the joke is supposed to be” that I did not actually assert this interpretation to be the definitively correct one.
Then the abovementioned interpretation that the cartoon is a joke about “mansplaining” would probably not be correct.
Then the abovementioned interpretation that the cartoon is a joke about “mansplaining” would probably not be correct.
:rolleyes:
You seem to miss my point. It’s not to say that I think your interpretation isn’t what the cartoonist meant, or even a reasonable interpretation of the cartoon. It’s to say that it is not reasonable to interpret the man’s comments (pretending it was a depiction of a real life exchange) in the way the woman in the cartoon appears to interpret them.
Why DO nail sizes at the hardware store have a “d” in them? I mean, I KNOW that the “d” stands for “penny,” but WHY? There’s no “d” in “penny.”
Our British friends of a certain age could tell us. 
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Great. Maybe one will show up.
Found the cartoon online.
Now that I see it, it looks like they really are visiting the museum together, though it’s hard to understand why they are together. Man bun, pot belly, HIGH water jeans, WTF? Is the cartoonist–who is in fact male–suggesting that the guy wouldn’t be so brusquely snubbed if he had more going for him?
It still angers me. If you’re with someone, in their immediate physical presence, DON’T ask questions or introduce topics if you don’t want to listen to what the other person has to say. It shouldn’t be like you’re talking to the fire extinguisher on the wall. Putting myself in that man’s place, my reaction would be exactly that.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Is there a link to this cartoon somewhere, or do we just have S of P’s description?
My main experience with the usage of “mansplaining” is that it is wielded like a cudgel on Twitter. A woman makes a provocative assertion about a controversial issue. A man expresses his disagreement. The woman tells him to stop “mansplaining”, which apparently means her assertion must go unchallenged, other than in the unlikely event that another woman steps up to argue the point.
ETA: Ninja’d!
If I’ve got this correctly, what we now have is men explaining to women* what mansplaining is, what it should be, and why the term is offensive to men. How wonderfully ironic.
*(and other interested parties - but the women bit is golden)
Well, mansplaining shouldn’t equal “every time any man anywhere opens his mouth…”.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk