Condesplaining

Men don't get to decide what is misogynistic

Straight people don't get to decide what is homophobic
Cis people don't get to decide what is transphobic
White people don't get to decide what is racist
People in positions of power don't get to decide what is considered oppression
That's how we move backwards, not forwards.

—mamastiles[1]

Condesplaining is damaging.[1][2]

Condesplaining (sometimes shortened to splaining, 'splaining or splainin') is a social interaction or phenomenon in which holders of privilege explain something (often to do with oppression) to someone normally on the receiving end of that oppression.

"To condesplain" is derived from the phrase "to explain condescendingly", but is nonetheless not synonymous to it as it includes the power imbalance of intersectional oppression and privilege and does not necessitate an arrogant tone.

Origin

The earliest use of the verb "to condesplain" is found online in a Mumsnet discussion,[3] mirroring how "mansplaining" was coined in the comment section of a LiveJournal blog.[4][5] The user TrillianAstra defined it as:

Explaining in a condescending manner to one who you consider as less than yourself in a number of ways.[6]

It was proposed because some Mumsnet users thought that "mansplain" was reverse sexist because "no part of it requires a penis".[6] This is a highly problematic gender essentialist rationale for the creation of a nonetheless useful term. No part of being a man requires a penis, lack/loss of a penis does not strip one of their male identity, and possession of a penis does not imply one is a man. In fact, gender is a self-identity. Confounding "penis" with "man" is enforcing the gender binary, cisnormativity, transmisogyny, and ultimately patriarchy and kyriarchy.

To deny or minimise mansplaining is to deny or minimise male privilege.

Notwithstanding its slightly problematic conception, the word has gained usage in some social justice spaces, like the Atheism+ forum.[7]

See also

External links

References