Galsplainers of the Sisterhood
Uterus-free non-birthing persons just need to shut up, all right?
The leak of a draft Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the controversial 1973 case that federalized abortion rights, has already had one lamentable result: a great upsurge in feminist complaints about mansplaining.
Supposedly when a man speaks to a woman in a condescending, supercilious manner, in a tone and with words that make obvious his low opinion of her intellectual capacity, the victim has been mansplained. And the offense is doubly heinous in cases where anatomical differences are held to be relevant: How dare uterus-free men opine on the rights and wrongs of an issue like abortion?! (Incidentally, one wonders where this argument leaves trans man and trans women.) Anyhow, mainsplaining is held by the fourth-wave feminist Sisterhood to be a leading example of our corrupt society’s systemic sexism. And naturally it’s implied that a man would never, ever take such a tone to another man.
Well, he might not—but then again, he just might. I’m sure there are millions of guys out there who’ve been spoken to in a condescending, supercilious manner by some other guy: a relative, a boss, a coworker, his drill sergeant. And come to think of it there are probably lots of guys who’ve been condescended to by women, not to mention lots of women who’ve been condescended to by other women. Because it’s very often true, what Sartre said, that Hell is other people—and I would add, regardless of gender.
So I’m left to wonder just what is so uniquely terrible about the male-to female version of supercilious condescension. Why does it need a special name? How come there’s no such thing as galsplaining? And why is same-sex supercilious condescension left out of the equation? Surely a gay male is capable of condescending to another gay male! The answer is that such cases don’t align with the larger themes of fourth-wave feminism: toxic masculinity, the patriarchy, etc. and so forth. Just as postmodern theories of race assert that people of color ( POCs and latterly BIPOCs—stupid terms, incidentally) can’t really be racist, 4WF asserts that women can’t really be sexist pigs.
But as a matter of fact women can be sexist pigs; fourth-wave feminists certainly are. Their ideology embodies a claim that all that is wrong with the world is male, while all that is right with the world is female. We’re constantly being told that if women ran the world it would be such a better place—because women are more caring, and emphatic, and sensitive, and collegial. So when a guy gets galsplained, it’s actually for his own good, to help him overcome his crippling attachment to the patriarchy and his toxic masculinity. Indeed, it’s outrageous to deface such educational efforts with a pejorative label. Galsplaining indeed! Talk about sexist!
I’m not buying it, though. The doctrine of mansplaining is an obvious case of projection, blaming men for the very same behavior to which the Sisterhood is hopelessly addicted. What is fourth wave feminism, after all, if not a haven for nags and scolds and shrieking harpies? On the Web, galsplaining goes on all day, every day, at inordinate length, in frequently execrable prose. And the lack of self-awareness it betrays can be rather stunning. For instance:
https://gen.medium.com/dear-men-feminism-needs-you-833f77dcdf95
Thanks for the galsplain, dear Ms. Valenti, but I don’t need your brand of feminism.
In the context of the debate over abortion the doctrine of mansplaining is most convenient for the pro-abortion crowd. It enables them summarily to dismiss any argument, be it ever so grounded in logic and common sense, that emanates from a non-birthing person—to use a Woke term of art that seems to have been shelved when the draft decision on Roe was leaked. Suddenly the w-word is back in vogue! Well, I suppose that emotional blackmail works better when you use woman instead of birthing person or chest feeder.
A notable feature of progressivism and its branches is the requirement that progressives have either to be actually stupid or capable of behaving stupidly when necessary. So it is with fourth-wave feminism. To maintain its belief in a lame concept like mansplaining, the Sisterhood must always be erasing vast passages of reality—for instance, the reality that Roe v. Wade, cooked up by a panel of seven uterus-free white non-birthing persons, is a prize specimen of mansplaining.
Second wave feminist here: "mansplaining" used to be where an architect, say, would earnestly explain neurosurgery to a female neurosurgeon. It was a term for men trying to school a woman in her own speciality. Idiotic progressive fourth wave "feminists" have ruined this useful term and so much else. By the way, I love your essays--you're my new favorite writer; you make me laugh. Thanks!