Rush Limbaugh wrote a children’s history book, starring the fictional time-traveling history teacher “Rush Revere” who “travels back in time and experiences American history as it happens, in adventures with exceptional Americans.”
Of course, Limbaugh doesn’t have the best grasp on…
I realize I haven’t posted here in a while/at all (my mostly-photos-of-pie tumblr has also been dormant in an unfortunate way), but I’ve been having a lot of conversations about mansplaining lately and I realized I had some thoughts that needed sharing.
In my opinion, there are two different kinds of mansplaining.
The first is fairly straightforward, and is the more commonly accepted definition. It is when a man explains something with the assumption that the listener doesn’t understand because the listener is a woman. This is obviously sexist; the implication is there’s something about being a woman that makes us stupid or inferior or otherwise incapable of comprehending the topic on our own. This is particularly easy to highlight when the female listener is in fact more qualified or has a greater expertise in the topic than the mansplainer.
This kind of overt sexism may sound unusual, but unfortunately it takes place all the time.
The second kind of mansplaining is a little more complex, and harder to describe. It occurs when men explain the female experience while disputing actual women’s opinions on the matter. Rather than assuming the female listener doesn’t understand the topic because she is a woman, it is almost as if the explainer has forgotten that they are talking about or to a woman; they think they somehow understand what it’s like to be a woman more than, you know, actual women.
ACT I: Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers oversee broad, industrial scale hacking activities, and its reporters engage in bribes. This leads to years of investigations, multiple arrests of high level officials, an entire newspaper being shut down, and fervent apologies from Murdoch. The scandal…