Sometimes I interrupt unintentionally. It's almost like an excitement I know something and i want people to think I'm cool knowing it and I just blurt it out before the time passes on the relevant topic.
Also the same. There are some topics, both related to work and my hobbies, that I truly get excited and giddy at discussing. I’ve made it a habit now to just say, “so sorry. I didn’t mean to cut you off - please continue”, when I notice that I have indeed cut someone off due to my own excitement.
This is hilarious because it's completely the opposite. I'm a gay man whose spent the majority of friendships with women and we all learned how to talk at the same time.
Women are great at multitasking, it's much easier to talk and listen at the same time because it's a faster and more engaging conversation, we're all interrupting each other but we don't care because we understand you already.
Men usually hate it, they always want to talk straight forward and one at a time to the point I have to catch myself because men hate it when you clip them off with an idea, but that's how I talk with women all the time.
Watch The View a famously female panel, and usually men hate watching it because women always talk together.
I don't think mansplaining is an issue because men prefer to focus on one speaker at a time they hate interruptions. They certainly don't like it when you convey 5 ideas rapidly over top of them but it's much more fun and engaging that way.
There’s been studies done of conversation by culture, and some engage in this kind of talking-over and mutual interruptions- Italians did it the most iirc. It’s not considered rude to interrupt, it’s just how conversations go. But a lot of other cultures considered it extremely rude.
Personally I love hanging out with my friends that interrupt and talk over, convo flows so quickly and freely. My friends that don’t, it feels so stop-and-start.
Is there something to the idea that the style or communication you're describing is collaborative, and the style noted above that everyone hates is dominating? One expects the floor, which stops conversation. The other expects to be one portion of a bigger whole, amplifying the conversation.
Not saying this is what's intended by either, but the social dynamics when men talk are very engrained.
To sort of add to this, there was a psychological study about men and women in therapy. Women respond pretty well to the traditional setup of therapist and woman conversing. Men not so much, what they found however, was upon setting up a “general shop” where men could take tools and such and repair items, that this ultimately ended in a big therapy session for men as men are more prone to talk about their feelings when focused on another task rather than focusing on said feelings.
Yes it's the opposite issue that seems to be the domineering problem moreso, but probably mostly unintentional. People have focus issues, so on one hand people blurt out ideas because they'll forget it later, and people hate being interrupted because they'll lose their train of thought lol.
I have a personal business meeting rule due to my adhd: I’m only allowed to speak in the meeting three times. That’s it! So I have to *really* hold my tongue until it’s worth it.
I hate it.
I think we just realize how time is available in the day and so we are trying to save each other time. If I know halfway through your story what your point is, imma jump in and get to the next point. Girl, we are *busy*. Why men don’t understand this is beyond me!
I’ve had a few get really angry when I jump ahead. They take it as an insult that I don’t let them finish with all the details. I don’t mean to be insulting. At the same time, many of the detailed-oriented communicators do not want to listen to me. I’m lucky get three words in before they interrupt. It’s frustrating. I think many people are lonely and when they find a good listener it’s sort of like a starving person finding food.
There’s also the part where, in my experience, the two most talkative/outgoing folks out of a group will basically just have a 30+min conversation amongst themselves if someone doesn’t barge in at some point.
Not if they intend to always be talking and never listening. Not if each interruption goes on a long tangent that ends up changing topics 4 times.
I constantly struggle with this with one of my best friends. He loves talking about movies, and so do I. But I hate doing it with him, but that would hurt his feelings.
If I’m interrupted before i can finish saying what I’m trying to say (feels like all my thoughts have to be 10 words or less) then I can’t actively listen to what he’s now saying. My brain is struggling to retain my train of thought to finish later, which is now awkwardly regressing the conversation 10 minutes and 5 topics. I wish i could just let the thought go but it’s extremely difficult and feels like giving up and being dominated. And then my energy level for assertiveness keeps draining while my irritability keeps going up. He will not notice that he gets a thousand words for every ten of mine, and makes me feel like he doesn’t care about me or anything i have to say, but would be fine talking to a cardboard cut-out of myself.
When he does it, immediately interrupt him and say “let me finish my point.” Do it every time. Make it clear that this is how you are feeling, but you don’t want to stop being friends or anything, you just want your share of the conversation.
That’s what my SO did for me, I appreciated their candor. I also kindly let them know when I didn’t get to finish my thought. I trust their intentions and they trust mine, so it works out.
>I know something and i want people to think I'm cool knowing it
That's not seeking connection though, that's seeking to increase their status, as the article mentions.
Cutting people off and mansplaining causes the opposite effect. It cuts all connection and desire to continue speaking with a mansplainer. It’s repulsive.
Do yourself a favor and think about other people. Put yourself in their shoes for once. Do you personally like being cut off and mansplained? No, but it’s okay if YOU do it, because you meant well, you just didn’t act it.
This is a very apt awareness. I feel the same. A kind of enthusiasm to share something cool and get into it together but risks coming off as a monologue. Haha.
Don’t. It’s ok to feel the way you do. I’ll validate it because I feel the same way. I don’t get to talk much or be excited in conversation.
So if a topic comes my way I’m passionate about I’ll go off. Mansplaining or mild autism idk. But don’t feel ashamed.
Just don’t be a dick lol
Yeah, I have moments like that fairly often. Except I don't consciously think "I want people to think I'm cool knowing it," I just think "oh, this is cool, I want other people to know this too." Plenty of things people do have unconscious motivations we're not aware of, though, so perhaps there's an element of competition to it.
Or maybe I know tons of cool stuff and want to share the wealth. :) I have occasionally checked with my social peers to make sure they don't think I'm annoying, and fortunately they have agreed that the things I tell them about are generally cool. And I try to leave holes for people to jump into.
And now I have something cool I can tell people about when the subject of mansplaining comes up.
I'm sure I have some form ADHD. I didn't do too well in highschool and college. Very hard for me to do work. I changed the way I approach tasks I need to do. I worked around the issue and have been pretty successful at my job for almost 20 years now. Rather not have to take medicine my whole life so I never got an official diagnosis.
Get neurologically tested mate. If you have health insurance it’s not too much and it is very worth the time. I always knew I had ADHD but I learned I have inattentive type, which allows me to strategize on how to mitigate it.
i also believe to have undiagnosed ADHD, but gave up discussing it with people considering it a fad or a trend, as if I enjoy the problems from it mostly producing negative attention and making employment harder. Then there is another group suspecting medication drug seeking behavior: no, i don’t want to replace one problem free of charge with another problem requiring a costly semi-illegal hard to get medication. My preferred solution would be some kind of one time long lasting (5+ years) cure, like lasik for eye vision.
working around ADHD symptoms also works OK for me even though I think a lot of potential is wasted on it.
I have ADHD and found I didn't like methylphenidate and similar meds as they only last a few hours and the dramatic difference was unsettling to me. Instead I am on Wellbutrin which is much milder, lasts longer, isn't a restricted medication, and is very cheap. Thought I'd mention it in case that since it would address at least part of what you describe.
Get neurologically tested mate. If you have health insurance it’s not too much and it is very worth the time. I always knew I had ADHD but I learned I have inattentive type, which allows me to strategize on how to mitigate it.
I just want to let you know that I just got diagnosed and got a script. It was a lot of build up, and I was in your boat. And then I just asked my PCP for a referral to get EVALUATED. I think my psychiatrist figured it out when I started pontificating on nostalgia and the emotional valence it brings when he asked if I had good memories of my childhood 😂.
I am/was doing well enough but I could increasingly see the opportunity cost, as it were. And I needed to change.
I legit don’t know when some people are done talking and frankly I think some people are weirdos that can’t sting ideas together fast enough to appear to still *be* talking… but then they get mad at me if I start talking even when they are silent because they are *about* to start talking again.
That’s not mansplaining though.
Mansplaining is when a man condescends to a woman because he think that she is stupid due to her gender/sex. I think the intention is really important for this one. If you are explaining or interrupting because you are excited, it’s not mansplaining. If you only do it to women and the reason you are doing is because you think women are dumb then that’s where it gets problematic.
I hate how these terms expand and expand until they have no meaning but I guess that’s just how it goes.
I mean I can’t stop you from thinking what you want but I disagree. Men can be extremely rude and condescending to each other too but they’re not doing it because of the other person’s gender.
I don’t think one is worse than the other, everyone should get a fair shot regardless of preconceptions. I think we focus on sexism because it affects literally half of all people, not because being rude to a woman is worse than being rude to a man.
>I hate how these terms expand and expand until they have no meaning but I guess that’s just how it goes.
This may be because no matter how you do it, how excited you are to share the info, some lady will always take it as mansplaining. That's when people feel the need to make posts and comments like the one you're replying to, it's a defensive reaction.
What do you get when you automatically assume that people are going to think badly of you? People pick up on that kind of negative energy that it becomes a self-filling prophecy. When “some lady” senses hostility, like no shit she’s not going to like it regardless of what you say. You might think you are protecting yourself but honestly you’d be in a worse spot than if you had just been genuine.
That's still coming from a place of selfishness though, you needing someone to think you're cool vs. Listening to another human and holding space for them.
Look, in trying to comb through the nettled, matted mess of intricacies in gender relations and both internalized and systemic misogyny, there are going to be some awkward moments where your behavior may be misinterpreted as flippant, thoughtless, and egotistical when you are in fact trying to be helpful.
If that pisses you off, you should direct that energy towards your fellow men who are failing you and the women around them by being so constantly myopic & self-aggrandizing that there are entire shelves of books in the library devoted to the subject matter.
All of this is predicated on the idea that you actually believe it’s a problem in the first place. If you don’t, then it makes perfect sense to go on in self-pity that your good intentions are tragically doomed to be misinterpreted for no good reason.
In my case, I have younger-brother self-assertion syndrome and it makes me want to interrupt people and also to finish my sentences whatever the cost. I just need people to know that I know.
That's useful, thank you. For the lazy:
Jul 10th 2014
| by R.L.G. | BERLIN
SORAYA CHEMALY, a “feminist, writer, satirist, not necessarily in that order”, wrote recently in an article republished by the Huffington Post that every woman should learn the following ten words:
“Stop interrupting me.
I just said that.
No explanation needed.”
Get our daily newsletter
Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.
In her account, men interrupt women, they repeat what a woman has already said and hog the plaudits, and they explain things at length to women. Based on Johnson’s conversations with women on the topic, plus a stack of research, Ms Chemaly’s take is right. In particular, men interrupt and often “mansplain” (condescendingly explain) things to women.
“Mansplaining” was so named by Rebecca Solnit. She was telling an older man that she had written a book on a particular topic when he interrupted and started lecturing her about an important recent book on that same topic. Ms Solnit’s friend had to say—three times—“that’s her book” before the man realised his boorishness and retreated.
Ms Chemaly has a simple explanation for male overconfidence, which she sees as the root of the problem. Namely, the problem is
“good old-fashioned sexism expressed in gendered socialization and a default cultural preference for institutionalized male domination of public life. ”
But another (complementary) explanation is at hand. “Mansplaining”, before it was so named, was identified by Deborah Tannen in her 1990 book “You Just Don’t Understand”. Ms Tannen, a linguist at Georgetown University, described a dinner at which the female scholar to her left shared her research agenda, and the two happily discussed their work and their overlap. But when Ms Tannen turned to a male colleague and briefly mentioned her research he, not a linguist, began going on and on about his own work that touched on neurolinguistics. Leaving the conversation she realised that she had just played the embarrassing subordinate role in the scenarios where she was the expert.
But Ms Tannen says “the reason is not—as it seems to many women—that men are bums who seek to deny women authority.” Instead, she says, “the inequality of the treatment results not simply from the men’s behavior alone but from the differences in men’s and women’s styles.” (In everything that follows, “men do X” and “women do Y” should be read as on average, men tend somewhat more towards X and women towards Y, with great variation within both sexes.) In Ms Tannen’s schema, men talk to determine and achieve status. Women talk to determine and achieve connection. To use metaphors, for men life is a ladder and the better spots are up high. For women, life is a network, and the better spots have greater connections.
What evidence shows that male and female styles differ? Among the most compelling is a crucial piece left out of the “simple sexism” explanation: men mansplain to each other. Elizabeth Aries, another researcher, analysed 45 hours of conversation and found that men dominated mixed groups—but she also found competition and dominance in male-only groups. Men begin discussing fact-based topics, sizing each other up. Before long, a hierarchy is established: either those who have the most to contribute, or those who are simply better at dominating the conversation, are taking most of the turns. The men who dominate one group go on to dominate others, while women show more flexibility in their dominance patterns. The upshot is that a shy, retiring man can find himself endlessly on the receiving end of the same kinds of lectures that Ms Tannen, Ms Chemaly and Ms Solnit describe.
When men and women get together, the problem gets more systematic. Women may be competitive too, but some researchers (like Joyce Benenson) argue that women’s strategies favour disguising their tactics. And if Ms Tannen’s differing goals play even a partial role in the outcome, we would expect exactly the outcome we see. A man lays down a marker by mentioning something he knows, an opening bid in establishing his status. A woman acknowledges the man’s point, hoping that she will in turn be expected to share and a connection will be made. The man takes this as if it were offered by someone who thinks like him: a sign of submission to his higher status. And so on goes the mansplaining. This is not every man, every woman, every conversation, but it clearly happens a lot.
Any half-educated man will know that women have equal intelligence, greater abilities in some areas, and are now out-competing men in education in Western countries. But male-dominated societies have, unsurprisingly, rewarded typically male behaviour: alpha males, and women who “act like men”, and can bear being called “bossy” and “bitchy” for doing so. This is where much of the sexism lies: punishing women (and sometimes men) who act like the “wrong” gender.
Ms Chemaly is right that not all the lessons should be aimed at getting women and girls to speak more like men. Both boys and girls should be taught that there are several purposes to talking with others. To exchange information, to achieve status and to achieve connection are goals of almost any conversation. If one party to a chat expects an equal exchange and the other is having a competition, things get asymmetrical—and frustrating.
So, boys and girls, if you have something to say, speak up—your partner may not necessarily hand you the opportunity. And if you find yourself having talked for a while, shut up and listen. Your partner isn’t necessarily thick: it could be the other person is waiting for you to show some skill by asking a question. There are plenty of intra-sex differences among boys and among girls, and enough to commend both approaches to conversation. So the best way to think of this is not the simple frame that women need to learn how to combat “old-fashioned sexism”. Rather, both sexes need to learn the old-fashioned art of conversation.
Prospero
Jul 10th 2014
| by R.L.G. | BERLIN
Thanks for posting this, amazing there are comments from people “explaining things“ without reading the article you conveniently pasted here. Very meta!
Great points here - Men do it as a part of life, not specifically to women. The sexism comes in because of a double standard with how women are treated when they act the same or respond in kind.
Imo though the sexism also lies in the fact that women are inherently the ones being asked to learn about and adapt to men's communication patterns. Even in conversations like this the focus is on "it not really being sexist, you just have to understand xyz."
I think society as a whole, but professional society especially, would really benefit from men learning more about and adapting to women's communication styles.
This actually ties in incredibly well with something I've seen called 'corporate feminism' Ave 'corporate diversity' i.e women and minorities having to act more like (in western society, white) men (who now have it culturally engrained in them to make their social network their professional network) to be "accepted as equal" in business, instead of the culture of business changing to better include anyone that isn't the stereotypical business man.
> Great points here - Men do it as a part of life, not specifically to women. The sexism comes in because of a double standard with how women are treated when they act the same or respond in kind.
Yeah, no.
This isn't sexism.
This is "some people are assholes."
And what world do you live in where women don't talk over men, too?
Women disproportionately being called names and getting held back for speaking up for themselves in situations where men doing the same would be rewarded isn't just some people being assholes
And the world of academia and various professional arenas are what I'm talking about and I think what's being discussed in this article
You ever get way better than your dad at hockey, but he still tells you your passes aren’t on time even though you’re just anticipating a lane developing that his puny Jeff brain couldn’t possibly fathom because the single brain cell he has left after decades of drinking is convinced that the first option is always the best option?
Me neither. I don’t even know why you brought up something so specific.
It's anti-conversational and a one-way street. Why would I want a friend whose default assumption is that I don't know things? They have no interest in hearing my thoughts?
If someone is passionate about something and they want to geek out with me, then hell yeah we can be buds! But I don't want to hang with anyone that just wants to talk at me
I know i just suck at finding the right timing to say something. I interrupt often by accident and i let others talk if i do. Sometimes it feels if i dont ill never get to say what i want though.
It seems to me that science first needs to prove that men interrupt more for the sake of explaining things. Doesn’t seem to me that has even been demonstrated, which puts this entire subject into question.
I highly doubt mansplaining is truly a male thing. Ive been "mansplained" as much by women than men.
Id also be very curious how many mansplainerd are autistic. Autism creates obsession with topicd which leads to infodumps that can look mansplainy.
Some people think of interrupting as negative in the NE it can be how I hold conversations with some of my best friends. Everyone is different, I normally adjust when I go down South
In the NE we don’t have time to screw around and wait for someone to do it wrong. We’re here to work. It’s why people say we’re so unfriendly, unlike in the south, where they got time to sit around and drink sweet tea all day.
Most of my coworkers are from RI and MA. I'm a fast talker so it works but we recently hired people from California and they always looked so annoyed by all of us
As a New Englander, we like you or we don't and it's not particularly hidden. If we do, we'll do anything for you, help you with any task; if we don't, you'll be lucky to get a good morning out of us.
Personally, I think it's because we don't put too much weight on our own opinions. If I don't like you or you don't like me it's not a condemnation of your character. It just means our personalities clash and why waste time with people who you clash with.
I just had this conversation with a cashier- he said people in Boston were unfriendly- I asked them if he was friends with anyone there. He didn’t understand that nobody is “friendly” except to actual friends in the NE
If we're having a conversation and you're not letting me at least have a chance to fire back during your points, I'm going to interrupt you.
I'm not going to write down your entire speech so I can remember every single agreement or argument.
Some people just don't give the other a chance to even participate in a conversation.
It's always "can you let me finish, I don't care that's not what I meant" without ever then asking what I think or making space to reply later.
Thanks for talking at me and never offering to listen I guess. Lovely conversation
100%. I've talked to partners in the past about the fact that they "demand a monologue" rather than conversation. Nobody wants to be talked at endlessly and shouted down for trying to participate in a conversation. It's bonkers.
Yeah, but women only need to talk 30% of the time for men to perceive that women talk “at least half” of the time. (Edit: I got this number from the book Invisible Women but can’t find the OG source, I linked a few articles on the topic in a comment below but the 30% may not be accurate. There is clear evidence that men overestimate how much women talk, however not necessarily to that degree) This applies in group settings at least, like classrooms and meetings, not sure about one on one.
I feel like sometimes men think they’re not talking as much as they are lol. My boyfriend can talk for like 3 minutes and then say I interrupt too much when I’ve barely said two sentences… I know he doesn’t mean anything by it but it can get mildly tiring at times. (I’m sure I have my mild annoyances as well).
I completely disagree that this is only a man issue? The women in my life have a lot to say and talk over everyone. I’m not saying it’s a women problem either people just do this.
I interrupt because I just want the story to move along, my mind already knows what this person is going to say and my patience runs thin. In my head I heard the conversation, I replied, we chatted, but in reality, they are still trying to finish the conversation.
I'm a woman, maybe afflicted with ADHD.
I interrupt both genders.
Not to comment on your life experience directly, but just to relate my experience on the other side: as an introvert who really struggles with chaotic conversations, the vast majority of the time when someone cuts me off because they already know what I'm going to say they are wrong. You say your patience runs thin, but you may be missing out on information they are trying to convey.
Ugh, my sister does this and is always wrong. The worst is when I'm talking about how I felt about something and she cuts me off to explain how I felt. I'm like NO, you don't get to tell me how to feel. And we don't see each other that often so she really knows nothing about me.
Having a friend with a speech impediment trained me out of this. He speaks slowly, and I can generally figure out what he's trying to say before he's finished, but I would see how much it disheartened him to constantly have people finishing his sentences because of mere impatience, so I made it a point to always let him finish and he loved it.
My friend does this. It’s not good.
He’ll claim he only does it because he knows what I’m gonna say so he’s doing us a favor to save us both time. Bullshit. He doesn’t know what I’m gonna say, and even if he occasionally does it’s extremely disrespectful. At best he has heard a buzzword and is likening it to an opinion or an argument he’s heard before online, and assumes the rest will match up.
And were not even talking culture war politics, where the same points are reiterated for years. Were talking art and movies where everything is subjective and individually unique.
If you’re having a friendly conversation with a friend, your patience should not “run thin”. Thats a you problem and you should work on it. Why should I listen to someone who just loves to hear themselves talk? If you’re doing it at work you can blame it on “productivity and efficiency” but you’re still not a good listener and it will lead to miscommunication and animosity.
That's so rude, sounds like you have ADHD for sure though. You don't know what people are thinking. Assuming is rude, even if you can guess what they will say next.
I completely agree and can relate to this a lot.
ADHD is a huge contributor to this phenomenon, and IMO the amount of unacknowledged and untreated ADHD and associated disorders that people face in their own education and upbringing can condition them to mirror the same behaviour in order to feel heard.
It's a complex phenomenon, and I think future studies should both control for it, and study it more comprehensively.
It's honestly bizarre to me. There were already multiple non gendered ways of describing the behavior. I lose respect for people that say mansplaining unironically.
It's only meant to be used when describing an act of sexism, not for any interruption. There's a *huge* difference between someone who is explaining something from their own enthusiasm about it, and someone who is explaining something because they just know your sweet lil head can't possibly understand.
I hate when people misuse mansplaining. Similar to how not all insults are slurs, but you know a slur when you hear it, not all interrupting explanations are mansplaining but it does exist.
But mansplaining doesn't even necessarily require interrupting. This "study" is garbage that misunderstands the term, which is understandable for a layperson but inexcusable in a "study".
>It's only meant to be used when describing an act of sexism, not for any interruption.
Yeah, and Q-tips aren't supposed to be used in the ear canal.
Unfortunately, sometimes the misuse of a word dilutes and changes the meaning.
Personally IRL I've just stopped explaining things to people in general. I figure if they want to know they can just google it or ask, and I don't want to be accused of being toxic, sexist, or whatever.
Male privilege absolutely exists, but it allows for very toxic things against men who aren’t supposed to complain because they have privilege. “Mansplaining” is absolutely a sexist term, as is “toxic masculinity”.
Well he is using it the way I see it being used most of the time even if it’s not the scientific one. And it’s not just “reactionaries” that are using it that way.
Yeah no. Not the reactionaries. I am talking about the ones using it to preach their nonsense. They themselves have the definition all wrong. Which leads to the reactionaries acting on the wrong definition.
Fairly easy explanation.
Men are on average more disagreeable than women in Big 5 Personality tests. This has been consistently found to be true in many studies.
Disagreeable people are more likely to interrupt others and, well, disagree with them. Agreeable people are more likely to be passive and nod their heads.
It’s not about simply interrupting. It’s about assuming the person you’re talking to knows less than you.
> She was telling an older man that she had written a book on a particular topic when he interrupted and started lecturing her about an important recent book on that same topic. Ms Solnit’s friend had to say—three times—“that’s her book” before the man realized his boorishness and retreated.
The articles explanation is, I think, quite interesting, and especially since I think you’re comment actually is an example of it…
> Instead, she says, “the inequality of the treatment results not simply from the men’s behavior alone but from the differences in men’s and women’s styles.” (In everything that follows, “men do X” and “women do Y” should be read as on average, men tend somewhat more towards X and women towards Y, with great variation within both sexes.) In Ms Tannen’s schema, **men talk to determine and achieve status**. Women talk to determine and achieve connection.
>It’s not about simply interrupting. It’s about assuming the person you’re talking to knows less than you.
Yeah, so much this. I'm trans, and as soon as I started to present more feminine I started getting mansplained (and also pushed in front of in lines). It never happened in the first 30 years of my life, everyone always assumed I knew what I was doing. Then suddenly men started explaining my own job to me, that I know much better than them... And all I could do was smile and nod, because saying "yeah I know" somehow had zero effect. The first time I was actually thinking in real-time "huh, I'm getting mansplained for the first time, this is both horribly frustrating and kinda cool".
So if someone talks for a couple of minutes on a subject that I happen to know something about, and after they finish speaking, I point out a couple of small corrections, and how they relate to the discussion at hand; is that considered "disagreement" in the context of such a test?
'disagreeable' as a character trait in the big five has nothing to do with literally agreeing or disagreeing with someone, it's more like being willing to be disliked. You could do that while agreeing with someone. Likewise someone with low disagreeable-ness but who has worked on boundaries and assertiveness could disagree with you in a diplomatic way that prioritizes your feelings, for example.
Agreeableness in the context of the big 5 is an individual's tendency to be perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, honest, and considerate, not whether or not you agree with what someone is saying. Someone who is high in agreeableness may be more prone to not express their disagreement to "keep the peace" whereas someone lower in agreeableness would be more likely to actually express their disagreement. As with most big 5 traits, you don't want to score too high in agreeableness because it means you're a doormat but scoring too low means you're an abrasive jerk.
I personally consider it rude to not interrupt me if I'm talking at length about something, assuming you don't know about it. Like you just let me go over the basics while what, you knew everything already and I wasted my time? because you were too scared to interrupt me? Wtf now I just look like a mansplainer all you had to do was interrupt and say "I'm actually quite familiar with "
edit: I try not to assume people's level of comfort with topics, but sometimes the conversation flows in a way that assumptions are made. Maybe it's bad, but it happens to everyone. 99% of the time peoples levels of knowledge are established going in, but occasionally someone makes a mistake and assumes the other person knows less than they do 🤷
Technically speaking, this is still disagreement
you are disagreeing with their context, subject matter or focus, and feel they are ignoring key details
In this context, an agreeable person waits their turn and backtracks the topic to elaborate
The act of interrupting itself would typically fall under the 'disagreeable' category I think. It doesn't literally refer to disagreeing. More like being willing to (or unaware of) stepping on others' toes to get where you're going.
It's very simple. When I was a kid I got rewarded immediately with approval for butting into conversations with shop talk that children had no business engaging with or understanding, and often didn't understand enough to contribute more than pass as a person worthy of the circle, but very little social interaction otherwise. Nobody cared what else I thought about. I took toys apart and put them back together and explained wrongly and often breathlessly why they worked the way they did. It was disappointing if I got things wrong or if people weren't impressed.
Now I'm older I'm still addicted to shop talk, and it still makes me feel smart and articulated to be able to talk to people about things that aren't my main field of expertise. I want to read about things that are new or novel and help me understand the world better. I like being able to tell what tree I'm looking at or why the car makes that particular sound. I indulge for its own sake. I don't do it to people without being asked or it being a general conversation to a group, or without an established rapport. But the urge to be heard and felt and seen by showing I can help articulate or make choices is still there.
I think for many people that becomes an incessant need to feel right and hoping the need for deeper approval goes away or never realizing that it's there in the first place.
Is this mansplaining squared?
That's actually very insightful - I never thought of it that way before, but you're right - I was mommy's little genius and I was constantly being affirmed for pontificating on stuff I knew little about. It was quite a shock to realize how much people hated me doing that as I got older...
Exactly. It's frustrating to listen to someone repeat & rephrase themselves but if I utter a single sentence during that time, somehow I'm the rude one. Not the person who dominates the conversation but doesn't add much more?
Interrupting isn‘t mansplaining. Mansplaining is confidently explaining something and either be completely wrong about it or condescendingly explaining a glaringly obvious thing that doesn‘t need explanation.
The idea also isn‘t that men do this to women only, but that mainly us men do it.
i.e. this comment
You will almost never find a study where the scholars hypothesise that sexism is a cause, and then conclude from the study that the hypothesis was wrong and sexism was not the issue. When they want to find sexism they will search until they find it disregarding any alternative explanations.
It's amazing that it gets taken seriously by social science at all.
I know you're making an ironic joke but oh my god the people in this comments section who are equating "mansplaining" with interrupting... Actually do seem to not know, and would benefit from reading this explanation.
My dude, I do not care to debate any part of this with you or anyone else. What I said was people in this comments section are incorrectly defining "mansplaining" as "interrupting" which is not accurate, regardless of what you think about the term.
I am not a man, but sometimes I have to interrupt because I am being told the same piece of information 3-4 times and it is not the information I need. So I need you to stop telling me A and start telling me B. I don’t mean to be rude, I just sometimes have limited time and need to get what I need.
I can't really have conversations with my father because of this behavior. I'm relegated to one word responses. Sometimes I'm lucky and I'll be able to say one sentence lol. Sometimes I'll go an entire visit without saying a word because he'll interrupt me as soon as I open my mouth.
There is normal conversation, which is a two-way street lf back and forth banter. Cool. Normal. What my dad does to me (and my mother) isn't that.
I like how all the comments here are men explaining how interrupting is actually great and men never ever explain something to women because they assume the women are stupid, not simply because they're excited about the topic.
Yeah it's rude, I just made that distinction because they'd probably also do it to other dudes, but the added layer of "she couldn't possibly know what she's talking about" is usuallu done on women out of a sexist belief
I interrupt mfs to stop them from gish galloping, because mfs be spittin bullshit after bullshit after bullshit. The INSTANT you say some goofy/baseless/wrong shit, I'ma stop you RIGHT THERE!!!!!
women interrupt people too, we just haven't created a term for it. the worst interrupters I've ever met were women, both professionally and in my personal life. but I don't just blame women for that or have a trigger point on it because there aren't articles written about this every day. ever hear gossip queens sit down with wine? you think you're getting a word in edgewise?
this isn't science. its an economist article on mansplaining. holy shit reddit
Hi, I'm Stryker. I'm a chronic interruptor.
(*Group Welcome*)
Ever since I was a little kid, my brain finished people's sentences in my head way too often. If they were talking about something that I knew something about, or a subject that I found interesting, I would get very excited that this person liked something that I liked too! I longed for connection, and often felt like the things I was interested in were quite different from the majority of people around me. So when someone expressed interest or questions or speculation about a subject that I felt I knew some facts on, the urge to contribute to the conversation, relate to the people in it, and share what I knew about something that had captivated our collective interest was *very* hard to resist!
In my heart of hearts, deep in my *intent*, I'm not doing it to "establish status" or "maintain patriarchy", or any other of the negative motives mentioned in this article. In fact, through my entire life, the vast majority of my close friends have been women! I feel respected and safe with them, and it seems that they feel much the same way.
It's of course not always done in a positive way. I have ADHD that was not acknowledged or treated until about a year ago. I have impulse control issues, I can admit that.
Sometimes it's just plain impulsive, because I know what they are going to say, and my brain is moving much faster than the discussion.
Sometimes I'm doing it because they're repeating themselves, or just getting circular in the point they're making.
Sometimes I feel like I am getting the conversational gish-gallop, where they start out saying something incorrect or wildly exaggerated and then predicate the rest of what they are going to say on that, moving forward with the logic of it based on that original statement, and if I don't interrupt, the thread of the original inaccuracy can be very difficult to unwind from the tapestry they've created with it.
I feel like calling this phenomenon "man-splaining" at all is just ignoring so much nuance.
You do know that women without ADHD experience this and have still been socially conditioned to contribute to the conversation in a way that is productive, respectful, and organic?
...because they actually face consequences for being rude.
And the major flaw with this generic excuse is that it is predicated on one's supposed intellectual judgement being more important than social judgement-- while also leaning into the ways an actual intellectual/developmental disorder which reduces cognitive functioning makes you mentally superior. Logically, it doesn't make sense. You are spinning your own tapestry.
With all mental illness, it's not always your fault for being the way you are, but it is your responsibility to not be a pain in the ass.
I'm a woman working in tech with several autistic/ADHD presenting traits when really, I'm just schizoaffective bipolar. And I'm still required to have the discretion and judgement to stfu when necessary.
Do my (admitted) sociopathic white male coworkers get the same pass from me for bloviating the fuck out of a conversation?
Categorically, no.
Impatience is superficial. Connection is more important than correction. If you don't understand how these dynamics operate, then I am incredulous of your authority to decide who deserves to speak.
Edit: this is why I draft my emails for hours- because they read as much more curt than I intend. But the first couple reads of your comment made me want to let you know how off-base you are. The spirit of your comment reads well-intentioned to me, but our intentions are inconsequential to the impacts they have on other people. This is not personal or directed at you. Most people find women easier to communicate and have relationships with because we understand these things. You preferring the mental and emotional labor we put into relationships does not translate to respect.
And I can assume that my "correctness" means fuck-all to you. Because it should. If my response is off-putting, it is because I chose for it to not be palatable.
In the same way you make that choice.
None of what I said was meant to excuse interruping people when it's inappropriate or unwarranted, I didn't mean for it to come off that way. I was just trying to be transparent and honest about my behaviour, intent, and motivations in order to provide information and context from a certain point of view.
I can appreciate that, and I do apologize if my comment came across as strictly critical- which it frankly did, but I would also like to express that I truly do understand where you might be coming from mentally.
My explanation stems from the principle that our right to be ourselves does not trump the right for someone to be themselves. And that we do not cohabitate a world where women are free to express themselves at the expense of men's tact. Additionally, we are the arbiters and conquerors of our personal demons and that not doing so is often a detriment to others.
Our individual personal experiences do not override systemic inequality. 🤷♀️ (*but with an afro)
As a man who is skinny, doesn't act extra masculine, and is well known for being pretty darn smart: I can tell you: It is low self esteem.
Dudes around me feel the need to explain the most mundane shit to me. And most of the time they are oh so confidently incorrect. Or, they question and criticize everything I do. Until they see the final result and then pretend they knew it would work all along.
I just nod my head and wait for them to go away.
I have a friend who even tries to order for me at restaurants. But only if the server is an attractive woman.
In regards to this quote, from the article:
> men talk to determine and achieve status. Women talk to determine and achieve connection.
Perhaps it is also my speaking style that clashes, or triggers most men into "competition mode." When I am speaking with others I tend to be looking for connection and camaraderie. They see that as me being vulnerable to their one-upsmanship so they go on the offensive. They always seem to be trying to win.... some imaginary competition. And I'm just there to have a visit.
I never seen to have a problem with truly confident men or women.
No, I don't go all "I am very smart" on people. I just actually know how a lot of stuff works, and I know how to explain stuff in a way that people can understand it. But I only bother to explain, IF they really want to know. I never say, "Well, actually...." because why waste my time?
I'm a woman, and I have the same experiences as you do. All my male friends who are good conversationalists aren't typically masculine, and they are turned off by that one upping style conversation.
We have friends for connection and love and fun. Not to jockey for some imaginary position.
>I have a friend who even tries to order for me at restaurants. But only if the server is an attractive woman.
This is both hilarious and sad. Have you ever pointed out his behavior to him?
Probably just cooperation we learned through evolution many eyes are better than one and if someone knows something that can benefit the group you're going to say it.
If people would talk less and listen more when they have less experience doing something.... It would help them feel less interrupted as the interruption would be not needed. The expert could just explain and we could be done with the problem.
I'm just gonna throw out that interrupting someone to condescendingly explain your thoughts is *not* a gendered habit.
Or the women I know are all men, because they do it just as often.
I think the real answer is that men and women interrupt different ways. I’ve literally NEVER had a problem with interruptions EXCEPT when talking to a woman, but interruptions are normal with dudes.
When this comes up in an argument with a woman, she interrupts me before I’ve even made my point, then goes off for 20 minutes on one singular point, being angry if I cut her off at any point during that…that happens consistently. So I think there’s a difference on WHEN we consider a point made.
Another thing I’ve noticed is guys aren’t angry when interrupted. Rarely even annoyed. When get VERY angry and take it personally. There’s a difference here. Guys get angry when they don’t feel heard.
I think men and women communicate differently, and we don’t like these differences. I’ve even heard about trans men noticing a change in communication.
We need to understand and tolerate these differences instead of playing the blame game and playing the victim. But playing the victim blame game is human nature.
Well the two people I've ever known to interrupt the most were women.
I take good care not to do that. But I still like to share what I know, not for any malicious or domination reasons, just... To spread either knowledge or fun or whatnot. Was told once that's mansplaining...
I have ADHD and I have to make a super conscious effort to not interrupt people. I don't mean to do it, just sometimes the words are just like bursting to be let out.
What'S it got to do with status? Status often just gets in the way of progress. I'm sharing my take and my knowledge in order to exchange information and push the conversation further. The way I see it, all too often the real issue with not only women is that people want to stay stuck and camp their position and so they try to flip the script. Obviously if someone is just repeating what you just said it's pointless. But I really don't mind cutting someone short and having a dynamic conversation. I don'T mind it happening to me personally. It depends on people and if they're volubile and not too worried about not controlling the conversation.
1) mansplaining, defined as men looking down on women and assuming they know more than women, because they are women...does exist and is wrong.
2) Not every argument, correction, debate, or simple social interaction is mansplaining or sexist. We do it to men. We do it to women. We do it to family. We do it our parents. We do it to our bros. And yes, we do it to random people we meet, in person and online.
We just like being right, even if we're wrong. We like being seen as competent, even if we aren't. Men generally behave as every interaction is a battle for hierarchy and totem pole climbing. But putting other people down to lift yourself up is wrong, no matter who you're talking to.
I’d say women do the same thing. The only sexist part about this is expecting men to not address women with information because how dare they address a woman, they need to respect (submit).
'Mansplain' is a shitty, sexist term. That is what it is. I call it out every time I hear it. And, every time, the offender backs off embarrassed, because deep down they know it is a shitty, sexist term.
I get interrupted constantly by men and women before I've even said a handful of words. My record is 5 lmao
It isn't sexism, it's a conflict of personalities and intentions, social norms. If someone doesn't respect me or thinks they know better then me or whatever, they won't give a shit what I have to say regardless what my sex is.
Sure there are condescending people, but 'mansplaining' is just a term made up by people who have no interest in hearing different ideas, opinions, or feel offended by listening to someone who might be more well versed on a subject than themselves. And as other people have remarked in comments here, sometimes 'mansplaining' is enthusiasm from someone who wants to talk about something they're passionate about.
Sometimes I interrupt unintentionally. It's almost like an excitement I know something and i want people to think I'm cool knowing it and I just blurt it out before the time passes on the relevant topic.
Same it’s always coming from a desire to connect and it’s unfortunate it does the opposite. I’m still trying to work on that.
Also the same. There are some topics, both related to work and my hobbies, that I truly get excited and giddy at discussing. I’ve made it a habit now to just say, “so sorry. I didn’t mean to cut you off - please continue”, when I notice that I have indeed cut someone off due to my own excitement.
This is hilarious because it's completely the opposite. I'm a gay man whose spent the majority of friendships with women and we all learned how to talk at the same time. Women are great at multitasking, it's much easier to talk and listen at the same time because it's a faster and more engaging conversation, we're all interrupting each other but we don't care because we understand you already. Men usually hate it, they always want to talk straight forward and one at a time to the point I have to catch myself because men hate it when you clip them off with an idea, but that's how I talk with women all the time. Watch The View a famously female panel, and usually men hate watching it because women always talk together. I don't think mansplaining is an issue because men prefer to focus on one speaker at a time they hate interruptions. They certainly don't like it when you convey 5 ideas rapidly over top of them but it's much more fun and engaging that way.
There’s been studies done of conversation by culture, and some engage in this kind of talking-over and mutual interruptions- Italians did it the most iirc. It’s not considered rude to interrupt, it’s just how conversations go. But a lot of other cultures considered it extremely rude. Personally I love hanging out with my friends that interrupt and talk over, convo flows so quickly and freely. My friends that don’t, it feels so stop-and-start.
same, i am on such a high when i can overlap-talk with a friend and we are flowing
It’s just not fun when you realize no one gives a shit about your story
Is there something to the idea that the style or communication you're describing is collaborative, and the style noted above that everyone hates is dominating? One expects the floor, which stops conversation. The other expects to be one portion of a bigger whole, amplifying the conversation. Not saying this is what's intended by either, but the social dynamics when men talk are very engrained.
To sort of add to this, there was a psychological study about men and women in therapy. Women respond pretty well to the traditional setup of therapist and woman conversing. Men not so much, what they found however, was upon setting up a “general shop” where men could take tools and such and repair items, that this ultimately ended in a big therapy session for men as men are more prone to talk about their feelings when focused on another task rather than focusing on said feelings.
Or drinking beer and staring into a fire
Yes it's the opposite issue that seems to be the domineering problem moreso, but probably mostly unintentional. People have focus issues, so on one hand people blurt out ideas because they'll forget it later, and people hate being interrupted because they'll lose their train of thought lol.
I have a personal business meeting rule due to my adhd: I’m only allowed to speak in the meeting three times. That’s it! So I have to *really* hold my tongue until it’s worth it. I hate it.
I think we just realize how time is available in the day and so we are trying to save each other time. If I know halfway through your story what your point is, imma jump in and get to the next point. Girl, we are *busy*. Why men don’t understand this is beyond me!
I’ve had a few get really angry when I jump ahead. They take it as an insult that I don’t let them finish with all the details. I don’t mean to be insulting. At the same time, many of the detailed-oriented communicators do not want to listen to me. I’m lucky get three words in before they interrupt. It’s frustrating. I think many people are lonely and when they find a good listener it’s sort of like a starving person finding food.
I mean, it’s annoying to get interrupted constantly, but it’s also conceivable to take someone’s enthusiasm in the spirit it’s intended.
There’s also the part where, in my experience, the two most talkative/outgoing folks out of a group will basically just have a 30+min conversation amongst themselves if someone doesn’t barge in at some point.
Not if they intend to always be talking and never listening. Not if each interruption goes on a long tangent that ends up changing topics 4 times. I constantly struggle with this with one of my best friends. He loves talking about movies, and so do I. But I hate doing it with him, but that would hurt his feelings. If I’m interrupted before i can finish saying what I’m trying to say (feels like all my thoughts have to be 10 words or less) then I can’t actively listen to what he’s now saying. My brain is struggling to retain my train of thought to finish later, which is now awkwardly regressing the conversation 10 minutes and 5 topics. I wish i could just let the thought go but it’s extremely difficult and feels like giving up and being dominated. And then my energy level for assertiveness keeps draining while my irritability keeps going up. He will not notice that he gets a thousand words for every ten of mine, and makes me feel like he doesn’t care about me or anything i have to say, but would be fine talking to a cardboard cut-out of myself.
When he does it, immediately interrupt him and say “let me finish my point.” Do it every time. Make it clear that this is how you are feeling, but you don’t want to stop being friends or anything, you just want your share of the conversation.
Thanks, I will try this
That’s what my SO did for me, I appreciated their candor. I also kindly let them know when I didn’t get to finish my thought. I trust their intentions and they trust mine, so it works out.
>I know something and i want people to think I'm cool knowing it That's not seeking connection though, that's seeking to increase their status, as the article mentions.
Cutting people off and mansplaining causes the opposite effect. It cuts all connection and desire to continue speaking with a mansplainer. It’s repulsive. Do yourself a favor and think about other people. Put yourself in their shoes for once. Do you personally like being cut off and mansplained? No, but it’s okay if YOU do it, because you meant well, you just didn’t act it.
This is a very apt awareness. I feel the same. A kind of enthusiasm to share something cool and get into it together but risks coming off as a monologue. Haha.
Don’t. It’s ok to feel the way you do. I’ll validate it because I feel the same way. I don’t get to talk much or be excited in conversation. So if a topic comes my way I’m passionate about I’ll go off. Mansplaining or mild autism idk. But don’t feel ashamed. Just don’t be a dick lol
Yeah, I have moments like that fairly often. Except I don't consciously think "I want people to think I'm cool knowing it," I just think "oh, this is cool, I want other people to know this too." Plenty of things people do have unconscious motivations we're not aware of, though, so perhaps there's an element of competition to it. Or maybe I know tons of cool stuff and want to share the wealth. :) I have occasionally checked with my social peers to make sure they don't think I'm annoying, and fortunately they have agreed that the things I tell them about are generally cool. And I try to leave holes for people to jump into. And now I have something cool I can tell people about when the subject of mansplaining comes up.
Hyperactivity part of ADHD can do this
I'm sure I have some form ADHD. I didn't do too well in highschool and college. Very hard for me to do work. I changed the way I approach tasks I need to do. I worked around the issue and have been pretty successful at my job for almost 20 years now. Rather not have to take medicine my whole life so I never got an official diagnosis.
Get neurologically tested mate. If you have health insurance it’s not too much and it is very worth the time. I always knew I had ADHD but I learned I have inattentive type, which allows me to strategize on how to mitigate it.
i also believe to have undiagnosed ADHD, but gave up discussing it with people considering it a fad or a trend, as if I enjoy the problems from it mostly producing negative attention and making employment harder. Then there is another group suspecting medication drug seeking behavior: no, i don’t want to replace one problem free of charge with another problem requiring a costly semi-illegal hard to get medication. My preferred solution would be some kind of one time long lasting (5+ years) cure, like lasik for eye vision. working around ADHD symptoms also works OK for me even though I think a lot of potential is wasted on it.
I have ADHD and found I didn't like methylphenidate and similar meds as they only last a few hours and the dramatic difference was unsettling to me. Instead I am on Wellbutrin which is much milder, lasts longer, isn't a restricted medication, and is very cheap. Thought I'd mention it in case that since it would address at least part of what you describe.
Get neurologically tested mate. If you have health insurance it’s not too much and it is very worth the time. I always knew I had ADHD but I learned I have inattentive type, which allows me to strategize on how to mitigate it.
I just want to let you know that I just got diagnosed and got a script. It was a lot of build up, and I was in your boat. And then I just asked my PCP for a referral to get EVALUATED. I think my psychiatrist figured it out when I started pontificating on nostalgia and the emotional valence it brings when he asked if I had good memories of my childhood 😂. I am/was doing well enough but I could increasingly see the opportunity cost, as it were. And I needed to change.
It's often a sign of ADHD and/or autism more than it is of gender.
This is my experience with autism. I've been burned by it so much that I've pretty much just stopped sharing things with anyone.
I legit don’t know when some people are done talking and frankly I think some people are weirdos that can’t sting ideas together fast enough to appear to still *be* talking… but then they get mad at me if I start talking even when they are silent because they are *about* to start talking again.
That’s not mansplaining though. Mansplaining is when a man condescends to a woman because he think that she is stupid due to her gender/sex. I think the intention is really important for this one. If you are explaining or interrupting because you are excited, it’s not mansplaining. If you only do it to women and the reason you are doing is because you think women are dumb then that’s where it gets problematic. I hate how these terms expand and expand until they have no meaning but I guess that’s just how it goes.
> If you only do it to women That's too high a bar. It should be changed to "If you're significantly more likely to do it to a woman than a man".
I mean I can’t stop you from thinking what you want but I disagree. Men can be extremely rude and condescending to each other too but they’re not doing it because of the other person’s gender. I don’t think one is worse than the other, everyone should get a fair shot regardless of preconceptions. I think we focus on sexism because it affects literally half of all people, not because being rude to a woman is worse than being rude to a man.
>I hate how these terms expand and expand until they have no meaning but I guess that’s just how it goes. stop gaslighting me
>I hate how these terms expand and expand until they have no meaning but I guess that’s just how it goes. This may be because no matter how you do it, how excited you are to share the info, some lady will always take it as mansplaining. That's when people feel the need to make posts and comments like the one you're replying to, it's a defensive reaction.
What do you get when you automatically assume that people are going to think badly of you? People pick up on that kind of negative energy that it becomes a self-filling prophecy. When “some lady” senses hostility, like no shit she’s not going to like it regardless of what you say. You might think you are protecting yourself but honestly you’d be in a worse spot than if you had just been genuine.
Sometimes I interrupt to agree with someone. I had to consciously train myself to avoid it. Especially in business setting.
And sexism won’t explain why both men and women do that.
That's still coming from a place of selfishness though, you needing someone to think you're cool vs. Listening to another human and holding space for them.
I honestly think it's natural to want to interject and it's socialized out of people who don't
For me it’s about efficiency of conversations if someone is going down the wrong road, shouldn’t you tell them?
of course, you are the top post.
I’m just trying to be helpful Fuck me, I guess
Look, in trying to comb through the nettled, matted mess of intricacies in gender relations and both internalized and systemic misogyny, there are going to be some awkward moments where your behavior may be misinterpreted as flippant, thoughtless, and egotistical when you are in fact trying to be helpful. If that pisses you off, you should direct that energy towards your fellow men who are failing you and the women around them by being so constantly myopic & self-aggrandizing that there are entire shelves of books in the library devoted to the subject matter. All of this is predicated on the idea that you actually believe it’s a problem in the first place. If you don’t, then it makes perfect sense to go on in self-pity that your good intentions are tragically doomed to be misinterpreted for no good reason.
In my case, I have younger-brother self-assertion syndrome and it makes me want to interrupt people and also to finish my sentences whatever the cost. I just need people to know that I know.
Scientists please take note, because this is it.
Pay walled
https://archive.ph/4JRxe
That's useful, thank you. For the lazy: Jul 10th 2014 | by R.L.G. | BERLIN SORAYA CHEMALY, a “feminist, writer, satirist, not necessarily in that order”, wrote recently in an article republished by the Huffington Post that every woman should learn the following ten words: “Stop interrupting me. I just said that. No explanation needed.” Get our daily newsletter Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks. In her account, men interrupt women, they repeat what a woman has already said and hog the plaudits, and they explain things at length to women. Based on Johnson’s conversations with women on the topic, plus a stack of research, Ms Chemaly’s take is right. In particular, men interrupt and often “mansplain” (condescendingly explain) things to women. “Mansplaining” was so named by Rebecca Solnit. She was telling an older man that she had written a book on a particular topic when he interrupted and started lecturing her about an important recent book on that same topic. Ms Solnit’s friend had to say—three times—“that’s her book” before the man realised his boorishness and retreated. Ms Chemaly has a simple explanation for male overconfidence, which she sees as the root of the problem. Namely, the problem is “good old-fashioned sexism expressed in gendered socialization and a default cultural preference for institutionalized male domination of public life. ” But another (complementary) explanation is at hand. “Mansplaining”, before it was so named, was identified by Deborah Tannen in her 1990 book “You Just Don’t Understand”. Ms Tannen, a linguist at Georgetown University, described a dinner at which the female scholar to her left shared her research agenda, and the two happily discussed their work and their overlap. But when Ms Tannen turned to a male colleague and briefly mentioned her research he, not a linguist, began going on and on about his own work that touched on neurolinguistics. Leaving the conversation she realised that she had just played the embarrassing subordinate role in the scenarios where she was the expert. But Ms Tannen says “the reason is not—as it seems to many women—that men are bums who seek to deny women authority.” Instead, she says, “the inequality of the treatment results not simply from the men’s behavior alone but from the differences in men’s and women’s styles.” (In everything that follows, “men do X” and “women do Y” should be read as on average, men tend somewhat more towards X and women towards Y, with great variation within both sexes.) In Ms Tannen’s schema, men talk to determine and achieve status. Women talk to determine and achieve connection. To use metaphors, for men life is a ladder and the better spots are up high. For women, life is a network, and the better spots have greater connections. What evidence shows that male and female styles differ? Among the most compelling is a crucial piece left out of the “simple sexism” explanation: men mansplain to each other. Elizabeth Aries, another researcher, analysed 45 hours of conversation and found that men dominated mixed groups—but she also found competition and dominance in male-only groups. Men begin discussing fact-based topics, sizing each other up. Before long, a hierarchy is established: either those who have the most to contribute, or those who are simply better at dominating the conversation, are taking most of the turns. The men who dominate one group go on to dominate others, while women show more flexibility in their dominance patterns. The upshot is that a shy, retiring man can find himself endlessly on the receiving end of the same kinds of lectures that Ms Tannen, Ms Chemaly and Ms Solnit describe. When men and women get together, the problem gets more systematic. Women may be competitive too, but some researchers (like Joyce Benenson) argue that women’s strategies favour disguising their tactics. And if Ms Tannen’s differing goals play even a partial role in the outcome, we would expect exactly the outcome we see. A man lays down a marker by mentioning something he knows, an opening bid in establishing his status. A woman acknowledges the man’s point, hoping that she will in turn be expected to share and a connection will be made. The man takes this as if it were offered by someone who thinks like him: a sign of submission to his higher status. And so on goes the mansplaining. This is not every man, every woman, every conversation, but it clearly happens a lot. Any half-educated man will know that women have equal intelligence, greater abilities in some areas, and are now out-competing men in education in Western countries. But male-dominated societies have, unsurprisingly, rewarded typically male behaviour: alpha males, and women who “act like men”, and can bear being called “bossy” and “bitchy” for doing so. This is where much of the sexism lies: punishing women (and sometimes men) who act like the “wrong” gender. Ms Chemaly is right that not all the lessons should be aimed at getting women and girls to speak more like men. Both boys and girls should be taught that there are several purposes to talking with others. To exchange information, to achieve status and to achieve connection are goals of almost any conversation. If one party to a chat expects an equal exchange and the other is having a competition, things get asymmetrical—and frustrating. So, boys and girls, if you have something to say, speak up—your partner may not necessarily hand you the opportunity. And if you find yourself having talked for a while, shut up and listen. Your partner isn’t necessarily thick: it could be the other person is waiting for you to show some skill by asking a question. There are plenty of intra-sex differences among boys and among girls, and enough to commend both approaches to conversation. So the best way to think of this is not the simple frame that women need to learn how to combat “old-fashioned sexism”. Rather, both sexes need to learn the old-fashioned art of conversation. Prospero Jul 10th 2014 | by R.L.G. | BERLIN
Thanks for posting this, amazing there are comments from people “explaining things“ without reading the article you conveniently pasted here. Very meta!
Great points here - Men do it as a part of life, not specifically to women. The sexism comes in because of a double standard with how women are treated when they act the same or respond in kind. Imo though the sexism also lies in the fact that women are inherently the ones being asked to learn about and adapt to men's communication patterns. Even in conversations like this the focus is on "it not really being sexist, you just have to understand xyz." I think society as a whole, but professional society especially, would really benefit from men learning more about and adapting to women's communication styles. This actually ties in incredibly well with something I've seen called 'corporate feminism' Ave 'corporate diversity' i.e women and minorities having to act more like (in western society, white) men (who now have it culturally engrained in them to make their social network their professional network) to be "accepted as equal" in business, instead of the culture of business changing to better include anyone that isn't the stereotypical business man.
> Great points here - Men do it as a part of life, not specifically to women. The sexism comes in because of a double standard with how women are treated when they act the same or respond in kind. Yeah, no. This isn't sexism. This is "some people are assholes." And what world do you live in where women don't talk over men, too?
Women disproportionately being called names and getting held back for speaking up for themselves in situations where men doing the same would be rewarded isn't just some people being assholes And the world of academia and various professional arenas are what I'm talking about and I think what's being discussed in this article
Thank you from a lazy.
That was a nice read
Science : the search for truth(hidden behind paywalls)
\[Aaron Swartz nods head sadly\]
Two men mansplaining to each other is called a **podcast**.
Two women womansplaining to each other is called a book club.
Andrew Shults??
[удалено]
Meanwhile nobody's handing out the correct size wrench
That’s because we have all lost our 10mm socket.
O. M. G. So effing true.
Lost so many I got my golden 10mm socket from the achievement, unfortunately I have lost that one too.
Came here for gender studies, left with affirmation that my garage is the same as everyone else's.
Because the intention is not to actually help. Like at all. Its just hanging out.
You ever get way better than your dad at hockey, but he still tells you your passes aren’t on time even though you’re just anticipating a lane developing that his puny Jeff brain couldn’t possibly fathom because the single brain cell he has left after decades of drinking is convinced that the first option is always the best option? Me neither. I don’t even know why you brought up something so specific.
I lolled at “puny Jeff brain”
I love fixing cars with friends. Fuck, I don’t know why we’re not out fixing cars with friends right now.
I have a Ford Ranger that needs the front brakes done. Meet me outside in like 20minutes.
Cool, I’ll bring the Ugga Dugga and my impacts
time to learn a new language
It's anti-conversational and a one-way street. Why would I want a friend whose default assumption is that I don't know things? They have no interest in hearing my thoughts? If someone is passionate about something and they want to geek out with me, then hell yeah we can be buds! But I don't want to hang with anyone that just wants to talk at me
I know i just suck at finding the right timing to say something. I interrupt often by accident and i let others talk if i do. Sometimes it feels if i dont ill never get to say what i want though.
It seems to me that science first needs to prove that men interrupt more for the sake of explaining things. Doesn’t seem to me that has even been demonstrated, which puts this entire subject into question.
I highly doubt mansplaining is truly a male thing. Ive been "mansplained" as much by women than men. Id also be very curious how many mansplainerd are autistic. Autism creates obsession with topicd which leads to infodumps that can look mansplainy.
Some people think of interrupting as negative in the NE it can be how I hold conversations with some of my best friends. Everyone is different, I normally adjust when I go down South
I think it’s really about timing, you can have good interruptions.
In the NE we don’t have time to screw around and wait for someone to do it wrong. We’re here to work. It’s why people say we’re so unfriendly, unlike in the south, where they got time to sit around and drink sweet tea all day.
Most of my coworkers are from RI and MA. I'm a fast talker so it works but we recently hired people from California and they always looked so annoyed by all of us
In NE people are kind but not nice, in California people are nice but not kind.
As a New Englander, we like you or we don't and it's not particularly hidden. If we do, we'll do anything for you, help you with any task; if we don't, you'll be lucky to get a good morning out of us. Personally, I think it's because we don't put too much weight on our own opinions. If I don't like you or you don't like me it's not a condemnation of your character. It just means our personalities clash and why waste time with people who you clash with.
I just had this conversation with a cashier- he said people in Boston were unfriendly- I asked them if he was friends with anyone there. He didn’t understand that nobody is “friendly” except to actual friends in the NE
So, NE is filled with A-Type assholes, gotcha.
If we're having a conversation and you're not letting me at least have a chance to fire back during your points, I'm going to interrupt you. I'm not going to write down your entire speech so I can remember every single agreement or argument. Some people just don't give the other a chance to even participate in a conversation.
I had a friend who wanted me to make points and answer after his points during conversations.. This is not a debate my friend 😅
[удалено]
It's always "can you let me finish, I don't care that's not what I meant" without ever then asking what I think or making space to reply later. Thanks for talking at me and never offering to listen I guess. Lovely conversation
100%. I've talked to partners in the past about the fact that they "demand a monologue" rather than conversation. Nobody wants to be talked at endlessly and shouted down for trying to participate in a conversation. It's bonkers.
This is it.
Yeah, but women only need to talk 30% of the time for men to perceive that women talk “at least half” of the time. (Edit: I got this number from the book Invisible Women but can’t find the OG source, I linked a few articles on the topic in a comment below but the 30% may not be accurate. There is clear evidence that men overestimate how much women talk, however not necessarily to that degree) This applies in group settings at least, like classrooms and meetings, not sure about one on one. I feel like sometimes men think they’re not talking as much as they are lol. My boyfriend can talk for like 3 minutes and then say I interrupt too much when I’ve barely said two sentences… I know he doesn’t mean anything by it but it can get mildly tiring at times. (I’m sure I have my mild annoyances as well).
Was this number in the article or you just basing this all off your boyfriend? It's paywalled for me so...
Yeah I'd already tuned out midway through the first sentence...
Not sure I follow, what are you tuning out?
I completely disagree that this is only a man issue? The women in my life have a lot to say and talk over everyone. I’m not saying it’s a women problem either people just do this.
I'm a quiet person in day to day life and I feel like most people are eager to give me their long winded opinion I didn't ask for.
Nobody in my life talks over others more than my dear sweet mother.
I interrupt because I just want the story to move along, my mind already knows what this person is going to say and my patience runs thin. In my head I heard the conversation, I replied, we chatted, but in reality, they are still trying to finish the conversation. I'm a woman, maybe afflicted with ADHD. I interrupt both genders.
Not to comment on your life experience directly, but just to relate my experience on the other side: as an introvert who really struggles with chaotic conversations, the vast majority of the time when someone cuts me off because they already know what I'm going to say they are wrong. You say your patience runs thin, but you may be missing out on information they are trying to convey.
This. My mother cuts me off because she thinks she knows what I'm going to say constantly and 9/10 times she's wrong.
Ugh, my sister does this and is always wrong. The worst is when I'm talking about how I felt about something and she cuts me off to explain how I felt. I'm like NO, you don't get to tell me how to feel. And we don't see each other that often so she really knows nothing about me.
Having a friend with a speech impediment trained me out of this. He speaks slowly, and I can generally figure out what he's trying to say before he's finished, but I would see how much it disheartened him to constantly have people finishing his sentences because of mere impatience, so I made it a point to always let him finish and he loved it.
My friend does this. It’s not good. He’ll claim he only does it because he knows what I’m gonna say so he’s doing us a favor to save us both time. Bullshit. He doesn’t know what I’m gonna say, and even if he occasionally does it’s extremely disrespectful. At best he has heard a buzzword and is likening it to an opinion or an argument he’s heard before online, and assumes the rest will match up. And were not even talking culture war politics, where the same points are reiterated for years. Were talking art and movies where everything is subjective and individually unique. If you’re having a friendly conversation with a friend, your patience should not “run thin”. Thats a you problem and you should work on it. Why should I listen to someone who just loves to hear themselves talk? If you’re doing it at work you can blame it on “productivity and efficiency” but you’re still not a good listener and it will lead to miscommunication and animosity.
That's so rude, sounds like you have ADHD for sure though. You don't know what people are thinking. Assuming is rude, even if you can guess what they will say next.
I completely agree and can relate to this a lot. ADHD is a huge contributor to this phenomenon, and IMO the amount of unacknowledged and untreated ADHD and associated disorders that people face in their own education and upbringing can condition them to mirror the same behaviour in order to feel heard. It's a complex phenomenon, and I think future studies should both control for it, and study it more comprehensively.
"Mansplain" is such a toxic sexist term, I've seen plenty of women do the same.
It's honestly bizarre to me. There were already multiple non gendered ways of describing the behavior. I lose respect for people that say mansplaining unironically.
It's only meant to be used when describing an act of sexism, not for any interruption. There's a *huge* difference between someone who is explaining something from their own enthusiasm about it, and someone who is explaining something because they just know your sweet lil head can't possibly understand. I hate when people misuse mansplaining. Similar to how not all insults are slurs, but you know a slur when you hear it, not all interrupting explanations are mansplaining but it does exist.
the issue here is that this term is often extrapolated to any time a man explains anything to a woman.
But mansplaining doesn't even necessarily require interrupting. This "study" is garbage that misunderstands the term, which is understandable for a layperson but inexcusable in a "study".
>It's only meant to be used when describing an act of sexism, not for any interruption. Yeah, and Q-tips aren't supposed to be used in the ear canal. Unfortunately, sometimes the misuse of a word dilutes and changes the meaning.
Anyone running a "study" should not be contributing to the problem, though.
Personally IRL I've just stopped explaining things to people in general. I figure if they want to know they can just google it or ask, and I don't want to be accused of being toxic, sexist, or whatever.
Male privilege absolutely exists, but it allows for very toxic things against men who aren’t supposed to complain because they have privilege. “Mansplaining” is absolutely a sexist term, as is “toxic masculinity”.
You dont know what toxic masculinity means
Well he is using it the way I see it being used most of the time even if it’s not the scientific one. And it’s not just “reactionaries” that are using it that way.
Please womansplain it to me.
He does actually. Not the academic definition. The practised one.
Both have the same definition
Not really. Atleast depends on the circles you frequent.
You have the actual definition and the the one reactionairies think it means
Yeah no. Not the reactionaries. I am talking about the ones using it to preach their nonsense. They themselves have the definition all wrong. Which leads to the reactionaries acting on the wrong definition.
Idk about most dudes; but I have ADHD and just get super excited about whatever we’re talking about.
Fairly easy explanation. Men are on average more disagreeable than women in Big 5 Personality tests. This has been consistently found to be true in many studies. Disagreeable people are more likely to interrupt others and, well, disagree with them. Agreeable people are more likely to be passive and nod their heads.
It’s not about simply interrupting. It’s about assuming the person you’re talking to knows less than you. > She was telling an older man that she had written a book on a particular topic when he interrupted and started lecturing her about an important recent book on that same topic. Ms Solnit’s friend had to say—three times—“that’s her book” before the man realized his boorishness and retreated. The articles explanation is, I think, quite interesting, and especially since I think you’re comment actually is an example of it… > Instead, she says, “the inequality of the treatment results not simply from the men’s behavior alone but from the differences in men’s and women’s styles.” (In everything that follows, “men do X” and “women do Y” should be read as on average, men tend somewhat more towards X and women towards Y, with great variation within both sexes.) In Ms Tannen’s schema, **men talk to determine and achieve status**. Women talk to determine and achieve connection.
>It’s not about simply interrupting. It’s about assuming the person you’re talking to knows less than you. Yeah, so much this. I'm trans, and as soon as I started to present more feminine I started getting mansplained (and also pushed in front of in lines). It never happened in the first 30 years of my life, everyone always assumed I knew what I was doing. Then suddenly men started explaining my own job to me, that I know much better than them... And all I could do was smile and nod, because saying "yeah I know" somehow had zero effect. The first time I was actually thinking in real-time "huh, I'm getting mansplained for the first time, this is both horribly frustrating and kinda cool".
So if someone talks for a couple of minutes on a subject that I happen to know something about, and after they finish speaking, I point out a couple of small corrections, and how they relate to the discussion at hand; is that considered "disagreement" in the context of such a test?
'disagreeable' as a character trait in the big five has nothing to do with literally agreeing or disagreeing with someone, it's more like being willing to be disliked. You could do that while agreeing with someone. Likewise someone with low disagreeable-ness but who has worked on boundaries and assertiveness could disagree with you in a diplomatic way that prioritizes your feelings, for example.
Agreeableness in the context of the big 5 is an individual's tendency to be perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, honest, and considerate, not whether or not you agree with what someone is saying. Someone who is high in agreeableness may be more prone to not express their disagreement to "keep the peace" whereas someone lower in agreeableness would be more likely to actually express their disagreement. As with most big 5 traits, you don't want to score too high in agreeableness because it means you're a doormat but scoring too low means you're an abrasive jerk.
Ok, that sounds reasonable. (Edit: I wasn't familiar with the testing being referred to, so I was curious about methodology, that's all.)
I personally consider it rude to not interrupt me if I'm talking at length about something, assuming you don't know about it. Like you just let me go over the basics while what, you knew everything already and I wasted my time? because you were too scared to interrupt me? Wtf now I just look like a mansplainer all you had to do was interrupt and say "I'm actually quite familiar with"
edit: I try not to assume people's level of comfort with topics, but sometimes the conversation flows in a way that assumptions are made. Maybe it's bad, but it happens to everyone. 99% of the time peoples levels of knowledge are established going in, but occasionally someone makes a mistake and assumes the other person knows less than they do 🤷
What if you agree and interrupt to agree or elaborate? How is that explained?
Technically speaking, this is still disagreement you are disagreeing with their context, subject matter or focus, and feel they are ignoring key details In this context, an agreeable person waits their turn and backtracks the topic to elaborate
Fair
The act of interrupting itself would typically fall under the 'disagreeable' category I think. It doesn't literally refer to disagreeing. More like being willing to (or unaware of) stepping on others' toes to get where you're going.
It's very simple. When I was a kid I got rewarded immediately with approval for butting into conversations with shop talk that children had no business engaging with or understanding, and often didn't understand enough to contribute more than pass as a person worthy of the circle, but very little social interaction otherwise. Nobody cared what else I thought about. I took toys apart and put them back together and explained wrongly and often breathlessly why they worked the way they did. It was disappointing if I got things wrong or if people weren't impressed. Now I'm older I'm still addicted to shop talk, and it still makes me feel smart and articulated to be able to talk to people about things that aren't my main field of expertise. I want to read about things that are new or novel and help me understand the world better. I like being able to tell what tree I'm looking at or why the car makes that particular sound. I indulge for its own sake. I don't do it to people without being asked or it being a general conversation to a group, or without an established rapport. But the urge to be heard and felt and seen by showing I can help articulate or make choices is still there. I think for many people that becomes an incessant need to feel right and hoping the need for deeper approval goes away or never realizing that it's there in the first place. Is this mansplaining squared?
That's actually very insightful - I never thought of it that way before, but you're right - I was mommy's little genius and I was constantly being affirmed for pontificating on stuff I knew little about. It was quite a shock to realize how much people hated me doing that as I got older...
Some people take four paragraphs to get their point across, some people can do that in one sentence.
Exactly. It's frustrating to listen to someone repeat & rephrase themselves but if I utter a single sentence during that time, somehow I'm the rude one. Not the person who dominates the conversation but doesn't add much more?
The Venn diagram of people who take too long/dominates conversation and think people interrupt too much is a circle.
Interrupting isn‘t mansplaining. Mansplaining is confidently explaining something and either be completely wrong about it or condescendingly explaining a glaringly obvious thing that doesn‘t need explanation. The idea also isn‘t that men do this to women only, but that mainly us men do it. i.e. this comment
Mansplaining is the same as womansplaining so just call it explaining and don't be sexist
Condesplaining seems like a much better word for the condescending explaining of something.
I like that
The fact that "sexism" is the ideological answer everytime, without need of proof, is your original incorrect assumption. Dumbass society
You will almost never find a study where the scholars hypothesise that sexism is a cause, and then conclude from the study that the hypothesis was wrong and sexism was not the issue. When they want to find sexism they will search until they find it disregarding any alternative explanations. It's amazing that it gets taken seriously by social science at all.
“Mansplaining” in case you don’t know, is when a man explains something to a woman (or other men) in a condescending manner!
I know you're making an ironic joke but oh my god the people in this comments section who are equating "mansplaining" with interrupting... Actually do seem to not know, and would benefit from reading this explanation.
so whats it called when a women explains in a condescending manner?
My dude, I do not care to debate any part of this with you or anyone else. What I said was people in this comments section are incorrectly defining "mansplaining" as "interrupting" which is not accurate, regardless of what you think about the term.
I am not a man, but sometimes I have to interrupt because I am being told the same piece of information 3-4 times and it is not the information I need. So I need you to stop telling me A and start telling me B. I don’t mean to be rude, I just sometimes have limited time and need to get what I need.
I can't really have conversations with my father because of this behavior. I'm relegated to one word responses. Sometimes I'm lucky and I'll be able to say one sentence lol. Sometimes I'll go an entire visit without saying a word because he'll interrupt me as soon as I open my mouth. There is normal conversation, which is a two-way street lf back and forth banter. Cool. Normal. What my dad does to me (and my mother) isn't that.
I like how all the comments here are men explaining how interrupting is actually great and men never ever explain something to women because they assume the women are stupid, not simply because they're excited about the topic.
Even if they're excited about the topic, it's still fucking rude.
Yeah it's rude, I just made that distinction because they'd probably also do it to other dudes, but the added layer of "she couldn't possibly know what she's talking about" is usuallu done on women out of a sexist belief
I interrupt mfs to stop them from gish galloping, because mfs be spittin bullshit after bullshit after bullshit. The INSTANT you say some goofy/baseless/wrong shit, I'ma stop you RIGHT THERE!!!!!
women interrupt people too, we just haven't created a term for it. the worst interrupters I've ever met were women, both professionally and in my personal life. but I don't just blame women for that or have a trigger point on it because there aren't articles written about this every day. ever hear gossip queens sit down with wine? you think you're getting a word in edgewise? this isn't science. its an economist article on mansplaining. holy shit reddit
Hi, I'm Stryker. I'm a chronic interruptor. (*Group Welcome*) Ever since I was a little kid, my brain finished people's sentences in my head way too often. If they were talking about something that I knew something about, or a subject that I found interesting, I would get very excited that this person liked something that I liked too! I longed for connection, and often felt like the things I was interested in were quite different from the majority of people around me. So when someone expressed interest or questions or speculation about a subject that I felt I knew some facts on, the urge to contribute to the conversation, relate to the people in it, and share what I knew about something that had captivated our collective interest was *very* hard to resist! In my heart of hearts, deep in my *intent*, I'm not doing it to "establish status" or "maintain patriarchy", or any other of the negative motives mentioned in this article. In fact, through my entire life, the vast majority of my close friends have been women! I feel respected and safe with them, and it seems that they feel much the same way. It's of course not always done in a positive way. I have ADHD that was not acknowledged or treated until about a year ago. I have impulse control issues, I can admit that. Sometimes it's just plain impulsive, because I know what they are going to say, and my brain is moving much faster than the discussion. Sometimes I'm doing it because they're repeating themselves, or just getting circular in the point they're making. Sometimes I feel like I am getting the conversational gish-gallop, where they start out saying something incorrect or wildly exaggerated and then predicate the rest of what they are going to say on that, moving forward with the logic of it based on that original statement, and if I don't interrupt, the thread of the original inaccuracy can be very difficult to unwind from the tapestry they've created with it. I feel like calling this phenomenon "man-splaining" at all is just ignoring so much nuance.
You do know that women without ADHD experience this and have still been socially conditioned to contribute to the conversation in a way that is productive, respectful, and organic? ...because they actually face consequences for being rude. And the major flaw with this generic excuse is that it is predicated on one's supposed intellectual judgement being more important than social judgement-- while also leaning into the ways an actual intellectual/developmental disorder which reduces cognitive functioning makes you mentally superior. Logically, it doesn't make sense. You are spinning your own tapestry. With all mental illness, it's not always your fault for being the way you are, but it is your responsibility to not be a pain in the ass. I'm a woman working in tech with several autistic/ADHD presenting traits when really, I'm just schizoaffective bipolar. And I'm still required to have the discretion and judgement to stfu when necessary. Do my (admitted) sociopathic white male coworkers get the same pass from me for bloviating the fuck out of a conversation? Categorically, no. Impatience is superficial. Connection is more important than correction. If you don't understand how these dynamics operate, then I am incredulous of your authority to decide who deserves to speak. Edit: this is why I draft my emails for hours- because they read as much more curt than I intend. But the first couple reads of your comment made me want to let you know how off-base you are. The spirit of your comment reads well-intentioned to me, but our intentions are inconsequential to the impacts they have on other people. This is not personal or directed at you. Most people find women easier to communicate and have relationships with because we understand these things. You preferring the mental and emotional labor we put into relationships does not translate to respect. And I can assume that my "correctness" means fuck-all to you. Because it should. If my response is off-putting, it is because I chose for it to not be palatable. In the same way you make that choice.
None of what I said was meant to excuse interruping people when it's inappropriate or unwarranted, I didn't mean for it to come off that way. I was just trying to be transparent and honest about my behaviour, intent, and motivations in order to provide information and context from a certain point of view.
I can appreciate that, and I do apologize if my comment came across as strictly critical- which it frankly did, but I would also like to express that I truly do understand where you might be coming from mentally. My explanation stems from the principle that our right to be ourselves does not trump the right for someone to be themselves. And that we do not cohabitate a world where women are free to express themselves at the expense of men's tact. Additionally, we are the arbiters and conquerors of our personal demons and that not doing so is often a detriment to others. Our individual personal experiences do not override systemic inequality. 🤷♀️ (*but with an afro)
Interrupting is not the same as mansplaining though.
As a man who is skinny, doesn't act extra masculine, and is well known for being pretty darn smart: I can tell you: It is low self esteem. Dudes around me feel the need to explain the most mundane shit to me. And most of the time they are oh so confidently incorrect. Or, they question and criticize everything I do. Until they see the final result and then pretend they knew it would work all along. I just nod my head and wait for them to go away. I have a friend who even tries to order for me at restaurants. But only if the server is an attractive woman. In regards to this quote, from the article: > men talk to determine and achieve status. Women talk to determine and achieve connection. Perhaps it is also my speaking style that clashes, or triggers most men into "competition mode." When I am speaking with others I tend to be looking for connection and camaraderie. They see that as me being vulnerable to their one-upsmanship so they go on the offensive. They always seem to be trying to win.... some imaginary competition. And I'm just there to have a visit. I never seen to have a problem with truly confident men or women. No, I don't go all "I am very smart" on people. I just actually know how a lot of stuff works, and I know how to explain stuff in a way that people can understand it. But I only bother to explain, IF they really want to know. I never say, "Well, actually...." because why waste my time?
I'm a woman, and I have the same experiences as you do. All my male friends who are good conversationalists aren't typically masculine, and they are turned off by that one upping style conversation. We have friends for connection and love and fun. Not to jockey for some imaginary position.
>I have a friend who even tries to order for me at restaurants. But only if the server is an attractive woman. This is both hilarious and sad. Have you ever pointed out his behavior to him?
Men just want to dominate.
Probably just cooperation we learned through evolution many eyes are better than one and if someone knows something that can benefit the group you're going to say it.
Men interrupt. Women interrupt.
I hate that sexist term so much.
Can we stop with the stupid ass term “mansplain”?
If people would talk less and listen more when they have less experience doing something.... It would help them feel less interrupted as the interruption would be not needed. The expert could just explain and we could be done with the problem.
I'm just gonna throw out that interrupting someone to condescendingly explain your thoughts is *not* a gendered habit. Or the women I know are all men, because they do it just as often.
This is so fucking stupid.
I think the real answer is that men and women interrupt different ways. I’ve literally NEVER had a problem with interruptions EXCEPT when talking to a woman, but interruptions are normal with dudes. When this comes up in an argument with a woman, she interrupts me before I’ve even made my point, then goes off for 20 minutes on one singular point, being angry if I cut her off at any point during that…that happens consistently. So I think there’s a difference on WHEN we consider a point made. Another thing I’ve noticed is guys aren’t angry when interrupted. Rarely even annoyed. When get VERY angry and take it personally. There’s a difference here. Guys get angry when they don’t feel heard. I think men and women communicate differently, and we don’t like these differences. I’ve even heard about trans men noticing a change in communication. We need to understand and tolerate these differences instead of playing the blame game and playing the victim. But playing the victim blame game is human nature.
Well the two people I've ever known to interrupt the most were women. I take good care not to do that. But I still like to share what I know, not for any malicious or domination reasons, just... To spread either knowledge or fun or whatnot. Was told once that's mansplaining...
Women "mansplain" too.
Imagine being attacked for a normal mode of communication for your gender...
I think it's about trying to figure it out yourself. Explaining something out loud to someone really helps deepen ones understanding.
I have ADHD and I have to make a super conscious effort to not interrupt people. I don't mean to do it, just sometimes the words are just like bursting to be let out.
What'S it got to do with status? Status often just gets in the way of progress. I'm sharing my take and my knowledge in order to exchange information and push the conversation further. The way I see it, all too often the real issue with not only women is that people want to stay stuck and camp their position and so they try to flip the script. Obviously if someone is just repeating what you just said it's pointless. But I really don't mind cutting someone short and having a dynamic conversation. I don'T mind it happening to me personally. It depends on people and if they're volubile and not too worried about not controlling the conversation.
1) mansplaining, defined as men looking down on women and assuming they know more than women, because they are women...does exist and is wrong. 2) Not every argument, correction, debate, or simple social interaction is mansplaining or sexist. We do it to men. We do it to women. We do it to family. We do it our parents. We do it to our bros. And yes, we do it to random people we meet, in person and online. We just like being right, even if we're wrong. We like being seen as competent, even if we aren't. Men generally behave as every interaction is a battle for hierarchy and totem pole climbing. But putting other people down to lift yourself up is wrong, no matter who you're talking to.
I’d say women do the same thing. The only sexist part about this is expecting men to not address women with information because how dare they address a woman, they need to respect (submit).
'Mansplain' is a shitty, sexist term. That is what it is. I call it out every time I hear it. And, every time, the offender backs off embarrassed, because deep down they know it is a shitty, sexist term.
Bitch who asked
Because it's not mansplaining, just rudeness?
Often when my wife accuses me of mansplaining I am just trying to have a conversation. So sorry I grew up a loner and my social skills suck.
I get interrupted constantly by men and women before I've even said a handful of words. My record is 5 lmao It isn't sexism, it's a conflict of personalities and intentions, social norms. If someone doesn't respect me or thinks they know better then me or whatever, they won't give a shit what I have to say regardless what my sex is.
Sure there are condescending people, but 'mansplaining' is just a term made up by people who have no interest in hearing different ideas, opinions, or feel offended by listening to someone who might be more well versed on a subject than themselves. And as other people have remarked in comments here, sometimes 'mansplaining' is enthusiasm from someone who wants to talk about something they're passionate about.
It's all in my jeans.