The recent incident that took place in the 58th Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival in Turkey brought the concept of ‘mansplaining’ back to the agenda.
Mansplaining is a form of sexist oppression that cuts women’s voices off, devalues their thoughts and words, and makes them more susceptible to violence.
Academic Coşku Çelik explains the origin of the concept of mansplaining, the social consequences of this practice and the necessity of persistent struggle against it.
Coşku Çelik
In the Oxford dictionary, mansplaining,[1] is defined as the practice of a man explaining something to a woman in a way that shows he thinks he knows and understands more than she does [2] something condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner, typically to a woman already knowledgeable about the topic.” [3]. It is highlighted that men’s tendency to make arrogant and arrogant explanations to women is a systematic and institutionalised form of oppression that silences women or devalues their words (Kidd, 2017).
Moreover, mansplaining points to the social disempowerment of women, rather than a mere communicative oppression. The manifestation of a male-dominated publicity where women are systematically silenced as a result of the idea that men’s thoughts and words are more valuable, which is socially taught to women and men from childhood. Thus, in a broad sense, mansplaining as a form of social oppression “crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world.” (Solnit, 2008/2012). [4]
The origin of the concept is based on Rebecca Solnit’s blog post titled “Men explain things to me” (2008/2012) [5]. The article is based on an incident that happened to her at a house party. The older male host asks Solnit that he heard she had written wrote a couple of books and what her books are about – as Solnit puts it, in the way you encourage your friend’s seven-year-old to describe flute practice. Solnit had six or seven books published by then, and the most recent one was, River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Techological Wide West. After hearing about Muybridge, he cuts Solnit off and says, “And have you heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year?” and without waiting for her answer, he begins to tell Solnit about this “very important” book.
While the man is talking about the book, Solnit thinks that she knows very well this smug look, the effort to establish authority over her, and the lecture on a subject she knows. Meanwhile, Mr. Very Important [6] continues to talk about the book. Solnit’s friend, Sallie, can’t stand it and interrupted the man (or tries to interrupt) and says that the author of the book he is talking about is Rebecca. But the man does not hear Sallie and continues to talk. Only after Sallie repeats it three or four times does the man hears her. The bottom line is that Rebecca Solnit is the author of that “very important” book, while the male host, who told her about her own book, only read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier.
In her article on this story, Solnit does not use the concept of mansplaining when discussing men’s explanations that silence women. Rather, she discusses behavioural patterns that push women into silence and question the value of their thoughts. As a matter of fact, what Solnit experiences in this story is a behavioural pattern that manifests in many areas and the institutions of daily life, such as family, education life, workplace, and determines the public space.
Her story is not foreign to us either. For example, in the traditional Turkish family, the experience of a boy who is buttered-up and made to feel entitled to many things, and a girl who is taught the responsibility of handling men from the first years of her life, will be different in her education life and at work. A male employee who is more self-confident about the value of his words will see the right to interrupt the female employee who is more nervous about an issue.
It is possible to say that one of the areas where this is most commonly experienced is academia. For example, professor Fatmagül Berktay tells in an interview that as a female academic, she has to work harder and prove that she knows more, and that her interest in gender studies is sometimes seen as a “hobby”. [7] Undoubtedly, this situation is experienced by a young academic in even more different and harsh ways. It is common for male academics to be listened to more often, within academic relations from students to university administration and even in platforms outside the corporate academy. [8]
Mansplaining, in its simplest form, is the practice of silencing women by men. However, women from different social backgrounds can experience this in different forms and intensities. For example, Solnit emphasises that she had doubted herself for most of her life and therefore backed down in many occasions, but being a writer of history with a certain public standing made her stronger. [9]
Silencing, a form of oppression, can have devastating consequences for women from different groups. According to Solnit, silence “causes people to suffer without a chance for help, lies and hypocrisy thrive, crimes go unpunished (…) And the history of silence is central to the history of women” (2017). As a matter of fact, not being able to express oneself makes a person lifeless, and even in certain cases, it actually kills. Being silenced in different public spaces makes women more vulnerable to violence.
According to Solnit (2017), violence against women derives from the rejection of women’s words. Men beat their wives to silence them, or behind the rape by a lover or friend is the inability to hear her words of ‘no’ and the denial of the the fact that she is the sole ruler of her own body. Therefore, “credibility is a basic survival tool” for women (Solnit, 2008/2012). For example, a woman needs this credibility in order to be able to take a restraining order against a man who threatens her to death; needs to tell her circle, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges, to be listened by them, to persuade them.
Although its a widespread phenomenon and has dangerous consequences, mansplaining is something that is usually denied. Moreover, a woman attempting to prove mansplaining is likely to be silenced or even subjected to further mansplaining. Denial of mansplaining can take the form of normalisation, isolation, or rejection of the act. One may, implicitly or explicitly, claim that men are “by nature” more knowledgeable about the subject they are describing, and therefore women need this explanation. By isolating a single incident, it can be claimed that what is done is an exceptional act of explaining independent of gender relations, or it can be denied outright that mansplaining is sexism.
In any case, it is important to insist that this act of explaining is sexist, given the possible consequences of the above-mentioned act of silencing. Silencing women is a form of sexist oppression that devalues their thoughts and words and makes them more vulnerable to violence. However, the woman who talks about mansplaining will very likely be accused of talking about non-existent sexism; other women who are more “unlucky” will be criticised for bringing this sexism to the fore while others struggle with poverty, rape and physical violence. Therefore, it would be appropriate to conclude by remembering the words of Sara Ahmed (2017: 16-18):
“Feminism is necessary because of what has not ended: sexism, sexual exploitation, and sexual oppression (…) When you become a feminist, you find out very quickly: what you aim to bring to an end some do not recognize as existing (…) Even to describe something as sexist and racist here and now can get you into trouble. You point to structures; they say it is in your head. What you describe as material is dismissed as mental. (…) A feminist movement depends on our ability to keep insisting on something: the ongoing existence of the very things we wish to bring to an end.”
Source: Feminist Bellek
