2

The question was originally closed for the lack of research closure reason. Hotlicks voted to close with the claim that the answer could easily be found with a google search, and Dan Bron voiced similar concerns in a prior comment. The chatlog with the relevant comments can be seen here.

I was the last person to vote to close this question, with the comment:

Hi Naser. We have policies in place to prevent the proliferation of questions which are likely to have a freely available and adequate answer elsewhere, so we can be of real help. If you can consult a dictionary definition and tell us why it confuses you or explain any doubts you have regarding it, we would probably be willing to help, but in the question's present state we can't really be sure of how to help you understand the word much better than a dictionary can.

For me, this was because Google's top result for just the word mansplain led me to Merriam-Webster's website which contained an adequate enough definition of the word alongside a few illustrative quotations, which at the time made me presuppose that the question not only lacked research, but also met the general reference criteria.

That would all be good and fine if the answer imparted adequate understanding, but continuing conversation indicated that this was not quite adequate for the needs of our questioner, who made a couple of subsequent edits to include what he found on google and made the following comments:

Thanks. I found some example and definition but they were ambigues. So I searched in english.stackexchange and I didn't found any question like mine.So I thought it will be good ask this question here for getting good expressive example or definition from some masters.
@Hotlicks I updated my question. I think mansplaining is some think like saying hey you are a woman and you can't understand it. for example: a female have an idea about football, and a man answer women don't understands football.

I can not speak for the other close voters, but if the question had originally included this information, and the research provided in revision 4, I would not have voted to close the question. I made a couple of edits to make the question read more fluently, make proper citations and include information from the questioner's comments.

Hotlicks and Dan Bron made comments suggesting that the found definition represented an adequate explanation of mansplain, but I have a touch of disagreement, and suppose there may be merit in answering the question. Naser does not seem to be fully convinced, and his newfound understanding of the word mansplain is close, but I suspect it is not quite right.

A man's mansplanation is usually a more subtle dismissal of a woman's wits through a condescending explanation that would presumedly not be profferred to a man due to its obviousness to anybody who has knowledge. "Women don't understand football" may be a misogynistic jeer, but personally I believe it is too direct and not explanatory enough to be called mansplaining. Maybe if a woman states something like "The Cowboys should have won" and a man named Captain Obvious states something more along the lines of "Whomever scores the most touchdowns wins" that might be a mansplanation, if it is assumed to be the sort of jeer that The Cap'n would not make make to the guys at the pub, predicated on the assumption that men understand the game better.

Perhaps I am mistaken, since mansplain is not really a word I hear often or use at all, but that is my own impression of it based on what little exposure I do have to it. Perhaps both cases are mansplaining, or I am entirely mistaken, but if I am right then this needs addressing in an answer by somebody with an adequate understanding of the word.

I also appreciate of Naser's efforts to cooperate with our recommendations and work to get the question reopened, and I would like to see him get the help he desires for that reason too. This sort of cooperativeness in getting a question reopened is a principle purpose of the closure reason, and it has been for quite a long time something we have had trouble achieving with new users. This is something Jay Hanlon wrote about in The War of the Closes, and it seems like the motivation for many of the recent changes such as new user notifications and the recent revision of be nice into the new code of conduct.

However I am not quite sure what to do about it. Strictly speaking, the question seems to comply with our research requirements (except for the check multiple dictionaries portion, which is never enforced) and perhaps for that reason alone it should be reopened. However, these definitions may be adequate for most people.

That combined with the fact that this question is predicated on preparation for going into the international social space, might make it more along the lines of what E.L.L. was founded to handle. Now I do not think that this is a bad question in its present state, at least if I can safely assume that I have not overstepped my bounds with the edit, but provision B for Cerberus's answer to Policy For Questions that Are Entirely Answerable with A Dictionary makes it seem like this might bar the question from the website, and it is the question linked in one of their local question closure reasons. On the other hand it seems to be exactly the sort of question J.R. was talking about in his answer to This Isn't English Morphosyntax Learners. Unlike Cerberus J.R. is a moderator there and that answer is more highly voted upon and newer answer.

I have not yet contributed much to English Language Learners, so I am not sure what questions are likely to be closed and hence thrown back to us if we do choose to migrate it, but I figure it is worth consideration given these factors.

It is worth noting that neither English Language & Usage or English Language Learners have many posts with the word mansplain or mansplaining, and no questions on either website seem to be within the scope of explaining its meaning. Either website may stand to have an open question regarding that.

Should we reopen the question, should we migrate it, does it need further improvement for a reason I have neglected to notice, or is there no chance that this answer can be reopened suggesting that it should be deleted?

  • 2
    I think the question should be reopened. The term is a neologism, an interesting one, which has no corresponding terms in other languages as far as I know. It clearly has cultural and sexist nuances that may need closer and wider attention than a simple dictionary entry. As often happens here, users just VTC without a second, deeper thought. – user067531 Dec 28 '18 at 7:09
  • 2
    @user2409 As often happens here, users just VTC without a second, deeper thought Said the user who once voted to close my manspreading question and accused me of being anti-masculinist...because I accepted the answer "spacehog" Did they not see the original question, mansplaining, and how it was first presented? – Mari-Lou A Dec 28 '18 at 8:58
  • @Mari-LouA - there were subtle traits of prejudice in that post, at least in my opinion. In any case there was some debate on the topic, something that also the mentioned question needs. – user067531 Dec 28 '18 at 9:39
  • I knee-jerk VTC'd because the version I saw seemed to be not in good faith and a willful misunderstanding. But given this lengthy proposal it seems there is good reason to not have it closed. If I could unVTC this I would have but unfortunately it only allows me to VTreopen. With rewriting, this is exactly the kind of question that should be answered here; UD is great for its audience but ELU should be the more authoritative source. – Mitch Dec 28 '18 at 12:59
  • 3
    Correction: not the assumption it could easily googled, the certain knowledge it could. – Dan Bron Dec 28 '18 at 13:29
  • 2
    Yay! Thanks for the reopen! – Mitch Dec 28 '18 at 18:57
  • 2
    @DanBron There are is a debatable point of semantics when considering the context as a whole, and perhaps a difference of opinion regarding what constitutes certainty and an assumption, but I suppose it is too presumptuous of me to assume you had made an assumption and you actually hadn't voted to close. I've edited the question. I presume this is accurate enough for your liking? – Tonepoet Dec 29 '18 at 16:09
  • 1
    @Tonepoet My take is the MW definition you found was entirely sufficient, at least for the audience we target with ELU, and “the definitions I found were ambiguous” is meaningless as the OP didn’t say why they found them ambiguous, and there’s nothing ambiguous about the MW definitions. OP then goes on to say “I thought mansplaining was <man refusing to explain soccer because women don’t understand soccer>”, which is completely at odds with the MW definitions. All of which leads me to believe is OP asked first, googled 2nd, to satisfy our requirements, and didn’t try to engage with the defs. – Dan Bron Dec 30 '18 at 2:36
  • 1
    @Tonepoet Net net this is, a classic “ELU please rewrite the dictionary for me, because my first instinct on meeting an unfamiliar word is to ask someone about it rather than taking the burden on myself to look it up in a dictionary. Oh, and PS please rewrite it for a non-fluent audience even though ELU is focused on fluent speakers and there’s a separate dedicated site for people learning English as a foreign language”. The question sucks, and answering it on ELU adds nothing to humanity’s body of knowledge. – Dan Bron Dec 30 '18 at 2:39
  • 1
    @DanBron I wouldn't go as far as saying the Q sucks but it does lack complexity. Furthermore, you're absolutely right that the definition supplied by the OP is the answer they are looking for. Adding answers with other dictionary definitions or website's excerpts will not turn it into a good question. And answers that are purely opinioned-based suffer from a lack of supporting evidence. – Mari-Lou A Dec 30 '18 at 10:09
  • #2 A more interesting question might have focused on the YouTube video, the one posted by the OP. If the Q had been mine, I might have asked whether the views espoused by the video were representative of the white male American populace. If the term "mansplain" is used derogatively against American feminists as seems to be the case, see also the Urban Dictionary definition of "mansplain" and the sheer volume of agreements/thumbs up they have accrued. The most upvoted definitions are also the most blatantly sexist. – Mari-Lou A Dec 30 '18 at 10:13
  • @Mari-LouA That is definitely a more interesting question, though I’m not sure we could get a meaningful answer. I’ll personally say as white male American that I find the term “mansplaining” terribly sexist and am offended by its use. I do not explain things differently to women than I do to men, and I don’t like the implication that if I’m explaining something to a woman (in exactly the same way I would to a man!), that I’m doing so out of unconscious sexism. But now, any time a man is explaining something to a woman, he’s accused of mansplaining. Similarly for “manspreading” (on subways). – Dan Bron Dec 30 '18 at 21:13
  • english.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11900/… If questions are on-topic but banal–and the majority of them are–they can jump through all the hoops we set them, it won't matter, the questions will still be banal. If these questions don't pique the interest of regular users, they won't be answered. The top expert users don't post answers for the badges or the rep any more but because they find the question interesting. Meanwhile, new users post their questions, and leave, they don't stick around as they used to – Mari-Lou A Dec 31 '18 at 10:32
  • @Mari-LouA - There is nothing banal in analyzing how, when and why the neologism “mansplaining” was coined. Its meaning appears to be controversial and its usage touches on different sensitivities, so explaining what implications term may have is actually essential to avoid confusion and misunderstandings both for NS and NNS. What do you need more? – user067531 Dec 31 '18 at 13:42
  • 1
    @user240918 was I speaking to you? But let's pretend I was, if the user had asked for its history and development then you'd be absolutely 100% correct. Perhaps you need to re-read the question, the only question. “However, this still left the meaning of the word somewhat ambiguous to me.” and “Can you give me a good scenario or more expressive definition, which demonstrates what mansplaining really is?” Does your answer provide this scenario? Can you think of one? – Mari-Lou A Dec 31 '18 at 13:50
3

It is an easy inference to think that if a question is easily answered by google that it is off-topic by 'general reference' or 'Please do you research first' close reasons. And that holds for many questions, but I think it is naive to assume it for all.

There may not be good answers out there (I'm looking at you, Urban Dictionary), and that is what ELU is supposed to provide: thoughtful, authoritative, substantiated (as much as may be possible) answers.

I find it easy to VTC questions that are poorly written and are easily googled, but that answers that are surely already out there don't necessarily attempt quality explanation.

In this particular instance, I think ELU can do better than google.

  • I am really surprised by the animosity that the reopening of the above question has generated among some users. After all we are talking about a New User (Be nice policy!) who as a NNS (Be Nice Policy!) is asking for help in understanding a neologism (Be Nice Policy!) whose meaning and most of all usage are unclear to them. Ah, did anyone tell them “Welcome to ELU”? – user067531 Dec 30 '18 at 7:29
  • @user240918 I totally understand the reaction that it is genref, but I think we made a good case that it should remain open. The question attracted some good answers and also some poorer ones. I think it was worth it to keep the question for the good answer. – Mitch Dec 31 '18 at 2:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .