On being mansplained (series: notes to myself)
I wanted to make a brief point. I thought it was original. But I was too late, it had already been made: mansplaining is gender-neutral.
I know because I have had people explaining to me – your average Caucasian, male, middle-aged, European bourgeoisie, in other words, the stereotype of the mansplainer – how to spell my name. But let me hasten to say that, no, my dear, this is not literally, thank you for explaining to me that it cannot be the case. I meant it metaphorically.
What puzzles me is how can you be so sure that you are not the one who is not getting it? Please pause for a moment and ask yourself whether "o buraco é mais embaixo", as they say in Brazil, which roughly means that "the hole is further down".
And if it looks obvious to you, if you thought about it, why do you assume I did not?
In short, next time, if you see me behind you, please do wonder whether I might be almost a whole lap ahead, before explaining to me how to run.
I (re)watched the film 9 to 5 (1980) recently, and your post reminds me of one of my favorite nuances in the film -- humor about giving and receiving explanations. And on the subject of gender-neutrality, the particular case I have in mind is between the boss's admin assistant Roz (who even eavesdrops for him in the women's room) and the three protagonists, all women. Roz is clueless of the double--meanings being thrown at her from every direction, maintaining her superior air and obvious explanations despite the other women telling her in subversive terms that they could care less what she thinks.
ReplyDelete