IMO, I think what @thursday_j@lemmy.perthchat.org suggested is sufficient. While I think that some of the arguments and framing the authors used is bad/problematic, I also don’t want to make good the enemy of perfect. I have problems with the article, but I’ve also spent a lot of time reflecting on gender and gender roles in society, and have engaged with discussion/content that made me try to view the world through the lens of a female-presenting person. This article, while flawed, might still make a positive impact on others who are less-feminist than these authors are.
I don’t know that this is what has/will happen, but I think the best solution for this community would be to leave it up, and trust that users will come to the comments section, see this discussion, and make note of the authors biases and how they influence what they write. Understanding an author’s biases and how they impact their writing, and discerning what information is tainted by that and what isn’t is a really valuable skill in the modern internet landscape where anything you google has 1000000000 results. I wouldn’t say either of the authors’ worst ideas are shown/supported in this article, so I don’t think it needs to be removed. If there was anti-vax stuff or things that were like… obviously bad-faith representations of feminism, I’d feel different. As it stands though, I think it is just an imperfect attempt at explaining feminism.
While I don’t think this necessarily invalidates all of the information and points in the article, I think some important context on the shortcomings can be found in the authors. I didn’t know who they were so I did a quick google search. One of them is on twitter blaming “wokeness” for our issues and criticizing if we should have had lockdowns during the height of the pandemic, and the other got in trouble in 2013 for saying “Dear obese phd applicants, if you lack the discipline to diet, you lack the discipline for a phd program”, and has an online ‘suggested reading’ list with some absolutely terrible books on it.
What in the world is mansplain?
“meaning (of a man) ‘to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner’. Author Rebecca Solnit ascribed the phenomenon to a combination of ‘overconfidence and cluelessness’. Lily Rothman, of The Atlantic, defined it as ‘explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman’.”
There’s something called respect for language.
There is nothing new nor disrespectful about words being added to the lexicon of a language. “Mansplain” is a portmanteau of “man” and “explaining”. We’ve been creating portmanteaus and adding them to common usages for at least 150 years in English, not even considering other languages. Languages are constantly evolving and changing; adding new words or letting words fall out of use is a natural part of the lifecycle of a language.
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. While I understand the fediverse well-enough, I don’t use the social media aspects of Lemmy enough to know how they work.
As for the rest of your comment, I’m not really sure I am understanding what you’re trying to say. Can you clarify for me? Are you talking about the word ‘mansplain’, the concept the word is meant to explain, how those two ideas relate, or something else entirely?
What do you mean? That the word “mansplain” doesn’t sufficiently explain its entire meaning and definition, and therefore is an insult to language? That the word “mansplain” carries a negative connotation about the speaker which may or may not be provable from the rest of the context it is used in?
Sincerely, I do not understand what you are trying to say here enough to say if I agree or disagree.