this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2025
1599 points (94.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
8661 readers
2840 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
English already haz gender-neutral words for this. For an adjective, we have "condescending". For a verb, we have pontificate, garage, bloviate, bluster, rant, etc.
Language changes and evolves over time, so we could also make a new word for this phenomenon. "Mansplaining" is unnecessary gendered slur.
"Language changes and evolves over time, so we could also make a new word for this phenomenon."
We did, you just don't like it.
Yes.
There's a lot of words people have created that have been deemed hateful, bigoted, and harmful. We call these "slurs".
And English is a very contextual language so something can be a slur in one use and not in another.
Is that actually true? I'm struggling to think of any examples.
There are occasions where a technical term is used as a slur in casual conversations while still being perfectly acceptable in the original context. "Retarded" for example. That certainly does not apply here.
There's some words that are more or less offensive in different English-speaking countries. "Cunt" and "Bloody" come to mind there. There's also been some attempt at reclaiming "cunty" for women which... Eh, I'm just gonna stay away from that one.
"Mansplaining" is offensive from it's very etymology. It's baked into the word without cultural context. The word itself is formed from unnecessary and bigoted generation.
The word is formed from an experience common enough that the word caught on overnight. We don't need to get #notallmen about this.
(Also, "I'm struggling to think of examples": thinks of several examples)
So when someone says "hey did you know 50% of the crime is committed by 13% of the population"... Sounds like they are describing a common experience. So by that logic does that mean it's not racist to say black people are criminals? If a black person got offended by that would you tell them "we don't need to get #notallblackpeople" about this.
For large swaths of western history Jewish people had a disproportionate control of banks and the money supply. Does this mean that the conspiracy theories about Jewish cabals controlling the world aren't anti-Semitic?
How common does an experience have to be by your logic in order to suddenly make generalization and prejudice acceptable? If one trans person gets caught sexually assaulting a woman in a public restroom does that mean JK Rowling was suddenly right all along?
And you clearly did not understand what I wrote. I came up with the closest examples I could think of and then explained how they were not applicable to the situation.
It seems like you really just want to be able to have a little bit of bigotry, a little bit of hatred. As a treat.
Alright well the key difference is that males are not a historically disadvantaged class and that makes a big difference.
Do you rail against "Karen" as an insult? What about philistine, Luddite, or barbarian? Do you fight this hard against "eat the rich" or ACAB?
"Karen" is a character, a specific trope. It happens to be a woman, but there is no inherent generalization that all women are Karens. It's gender-specific so I would use something gender-neutral instead, but it is not generalizing behavior across a group of people. The biggest issue with it is that it's unfair to people named Karen. Also maybe it's just me but I haven't seen or heard anyone use this in a couple years now.
I haven't heard anyone use the words "Phillistine" or "Luddite" as insults in probably more than a decade. If anything, I've seen the Luddites get a bit of a resurgence in popularity as an important early labor movement against capitalists. A lot of their concerns turned out to be true, and we are seeing parallels today with the rise of AI.
"Barbarian" means someone who is non-Greek, and later the Romans used it to mean someone who is non-Roman. This is a similar example to "retarded" where it is context-dependent. The word "mansplaining" does not stem from an inoffensive use like this, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Eat the Rich and All Cops Are Bastards are fucking based, because being wealthy and being a class traitor are choices these individuals are making, not identities. I would call serial murderers monsters, and racists pieces of shit.
I'd say "nice try" but really this attempt kinda feels like you're just throwing shit at the wall in the holes that something sticks. It's almost impressive how hard you are fighting to feel good about using sexist microagressions.
It's just pointing out that your position isn't consistent and seems to be related to how close the subject is to your own experience, while providing examples of the phenomenon of turning a derogatory generalization into a broadly understood concept that isn't necessarily attached to its root. (Barbarian is a fun one since the word was making fun of the way foreigners talked. I don't know of a direct contemporary comparison because people would rightfully point out that "chingchonger" is wildly offensive.) "Mansplaining" is a behavior specifically called out as a self-assured-man-assumes-ignorance-in-woman-and-condescendingly-explains-a-thing. It's not just dudes talking, it's not all men, and it doesn't hurt men that the behavior is identified. Mansplaining is a particular tone and context, it's hyper-specific language critical of one facet of patriarchal dominance and the assumed value of masculinity.