In my earlier post about sexism in CS, I used the term “mansplain”. Sam emailed me about it, saying (in part):
I really enjoyed your recent blog post about sexism in CS. As a man in CS it is good to be reminded of such things and to be both cautious and aware of them. In particular I like your optimism and your examples of how you work to achieve a better situation.
I’m not convinced the use of the word mansplain does much beyond switching the sexism back the other way, however. If I were to write a blogpost and use the word womansplain I am sure I would get at least one nasty email, and it would be justified, as it’s not really appropriate for the message. This is because it would be ascribing certain undesirable traits to women writ large, etc, I’m sure you see where I’m going.
It’s an interesting point, and I’ll admit that I haven’t really decided what I think about it. I was using “mansplain” as a convenient shorthand for the type of patronizing and condescending explanation that a sexist man is wont to use when speaking to a woman about a technical concept. Perhaps this is a reflection of what I read, but I felt that the word was well-used enough (and self-descriptive enough, certainly in context) to be clear about exactly the behavior that I was describing. On the other hand, the only instances that I was able to come up with when searching for “womansplain” were parodies of the former, and only a handful of them at all). Is it sexist to create a portmanteau with man- at all (some interesting examples here)? Or is it that the behavior described is one that is itself sexist?
Since I haven’t made up my mind about whether the use of “mansplain” is sexist, I decided to turn to an expert. David Crystal is a noted linguist and has published many books on the English language and its evolution. In his blog, he often takes on questions about words and phrases. I wrote to him to ask:
I’m curious about your opinion of the portmanteau “mansplain”, for which Urban Dictionary has several definitions variously involving a man giving a patronizing and condescending explanation. Inasmuch as a linguist is comfortable commenting on language being sexist, do you think that this is? Is there a litmus test of sorts that one might be able to apply? For example, is the reaction to a simple replacement (eg, “womansplain”) such a test?
I wasn’t really expecting a response, but a few days later, he did write back! (And I have to tell you that my little geek heart, which much enjoys linguistics and that’s how I came to be familiar with his work and an avid reader of his blog, was all a-flutter when I woke up to that email.) Here’s what he said:
I think it’s too early to say whether mansplain and womansplain have evolved a sexist status, The definitions on urban dictionary can never be properly interpreted, as no information is given about source and context. There’s a lot of idiosyncrasy and invention. So I think we’re going to have to wait a while to see how usage develops. However, I don’t know what a test for such things might look like. Social attitudes to language aren’t usually capable of being tested in a ‘litmus’ sort of way.
I have to admit that I was hoping for a definitive answer, although I’ve read enough about linguistics to know better.
So, audience, what say you? Do you think that it’s sexist?
Thoughts only, with no real support:
No doubt there’s a better example… but “mansplain” strikes me a bit like “chick flick.” I doubt many people would think of “chick flick” as sexist; but whether taken seriously or not, there is a polarizing concept implicit in the phrase: “chicks” as opposed to normal (i.e., male) people.
In the case from your earlier post, the behavior you described surely would still have been obnoxious had it been another woman who did it. Would it have been as obnoxious? Maybe, maybe not… but you probably wouldn’t have presumed it was sexist if it had been another woman.
Now, maybe you knew from this man’s past behavior that he was prone to speaking to women, in particular, in this way. The implication of “mansplain,” though, is that men in general are prone to speak to women this way… from which we can reason that if a man is speaking to a woman in “that way,” it’s safe to assume he is being condescending, and doing so because he is sexist. (Were it a woman, you might think, “maybe she isn’t aware that I have a background in this” or “maybe she doesn’t know enough about this to realize there’s more to it than just common sense and high school algebra.”)
But that’s exactly what prejudice is: applying what is perceived as a typical characteristic of a group as a default presumption regarding individuals from that group. So, I guess, I do think there’s a kind of implicit sexism, not so much in the word as in the idea behind it. While “mansplain” does make sense as a shorthand, it carries some subliminal baggage; and it is likely to be used in contexts where counterproductive polarization is a risk.
The other problem I have with “mansplain” is that it’s rather like “denial”: once it is suggested that someone is “mansplaining” or “in denial,” the thought becomes an accusation that can never be laid to rest: an opinion about what someone thinks is going on in someone else’s mind which masquerades as a statement of fact—one which perniciously invalidates anything the person might say is going on in his/her own mind (even though he/she is the only person who could know that).
In my experience, “mansplain” has another, more dangerous implication than just being unflattering to men: it diminshes the value of what they say. In a Catch-22-like scenario, I find myself unable to contribute to conversations on mansplaining on the basis that, as a man, any point I might make to the contrary of a woman’s could be interpreted as mansplaining. Much in the way language has been used to silence women for millenia, “mansplain” subtly revokes the rights of men to speak in certain circles.
I agree with the others – the term doesn’t strike me as a positive contribution to the discussion of whether there is sexism in CS. It seems to more focus on the negative. I like the other posts though 🙂
I have to respond to this:
“In a Catch-22-like scenario, I find myself unable to contribute to conversations on mansplaining on the basis that, as a man, any point I might make to the contrary of a woman’s could be interpreted as mansplaining.”
If you’re being humble, respectful and open-minded, you needn’t worry that you are mansplaining. If that’s keeping you from contributing to conversations, maybe you need to reevaluate your contributions.