I guess the question is who they were even talking to. Where they talking to the astronaut, or anyone reading their message. That would make a difference.
If I say: “When the sun rises…” and someone comes along to enlighten me about astronomy and how the sun doesn’t rise, that would be mansplaining and not correcting. If they talk to someone else because my words inspirerd them to think about this, then it wouldn’t.
So your conception contradicts the other person in this thread’s, because they said it’s not about group dynamics and you just said it is. They literally said men mansplain to each other.
I don’t see the contradiction… If a man explains something to another person in a condescending and nitpicky way, it is called mansplaining. But it becomes blurry if the man explains it not to one other person, which can be assumed already possesses that knowledge, but a group where some people might find that comment not useless or condescending, were it could be a correction or clarification instead.
Astronaut explains excitedly about her experience of the day, with a joke and some not completely factual information while addressing the general public. The ‘water spontaneously boils’ is not a scientific description but a way to make people interested in learning more about the science behind it.
Here are two perspectives this could be seen as:
Man notices that and addresses the Astronaut, explaining to her something that she already knows, in order to raise his own status, through condescending and nitpicking. -> mansplaining
Man notices that, assumes the Astronaut knows, but wants to give more information/clarification to the public about this why that happens. -> not mansplaining
From the wording of that exchange, I would think it rather is addressed to the astronaut, so case 1. But this is open to interpretation.
I guess the question is who they were even talking to. Where they talking to the astronaut, or anyone reading their message. That would make a difference.
If I say: “When the sun rises…” and someone comes along to enlighten me about astronomy and how the sun doesn’t rise, that would be mansplaining and not correcting. If they talk to someone else because my words inspirerd them to think about this, then it wouldn’t.
So your conception contradicts the other person in this thread’s, because they said it’s not about group dynamics and you just said it is. They literally said men mansplain to each other.
https://lemmy.world/comment/19090994
Yet again we must come to the conclusion that the only thing everyone can agree on regarding mansplaining is that it’s “a man explaining.”
I don’t see the contradiction… If a man explains something to another person in a condescending and nitpicky way, it is called mansplaining. But it becomes blurry if the man explains it not to one other person, which can be assumed already possesses that knowledge, but a group where some people might find that comment not useless or condescending, were it could be a correction or clarification instead.
Astronaut explains excitedly about her experience of the day, with a joke and some not completely factual information while addressing the general public. The ‘water spontaneously boils’ is not a scientific description but a way to make people interested in learning more about the science behind it.
Here are two perspectives this could be seen as:
From the wording of that exchange, I would think it rather is addressed to the astronaut, so case 1. But this is open to interpretation.