A couple of years ago (or so) "Mansplainer" was named word of the year. It's basis is the inability to believe in a full or whole female intelligence.
Speaking from that conviction becomes mansplaining-it can come from women as those of us fatz know to our cost. Though sometimes mis-applied, it's not just condescension, or telling you stuff you already know, but that's just product. It's the genesis that makes it more distinct. A person can assume you are incapable because of assumptions about who you are and what that represents in their mind, but may not be mansplaining.
They can be corrected, even if its slow, becuase they can hear what you are saying.
The thing about m/s is its convinced. This scrambles and erases the capacity to discern anything which contradicts that conviction and this causes the changes in the mansplainers brain function.
I am not kidding.
It's so odd, I think it ought to be studied by cognitive psychologists because there's something of the hypnotic phenomena about it.
Something to remember is that mansplainers are often oblivious. Often totally unaware or disconnected from this conviction and therefore may see themselves as supportive of women.
For example; a male collects a way or ways of seeing himself that overburden his self esteem. Perhaps unbeknownst to him, his mind surreptitiously uses the construct of male supremacy to shore up his mental viability.
Thus limiting his ability to unpick his sexism, without the threat of mental collapse. All probably out of his mindframe. Not least because he has the impression that he has a strong mind that can deal with these "faults" with equilibrium.
The effect on the brain can be quite startling, they hear you, but they can't hear you. A strong filtering keeps out what you are saying. It's not so much that you can't get through, it's that it becomes utterly distorted to the point where you are in a permanent open mouthed state and their "interpretation" of what you just said.
I'm talking beyond the creative differences in individual points of view, I'm talking about not recognising their report of what you are saying.
At times, you can see their every mental twist and turn not just because they don't get it and you do, but because they don't believe you can understand anything they don't, so are acting out that falsehood and dropping themselves in it.
Because it's all the way, that in the end doesn't matter, you leave them as you found them.
I've been turning this over in the back of my mind for a few days, when I read a post about the term. It suggested a woman telling a househusband parent, how to do some chore that he already knows could be called "womansplaining".
When really that's condescension, in this case sexist. It's based on expectations of assigned roles, not the tuning out of a person's intelligence to match your insistence. IOW. the woman believes men must be novices at childcare, they don't believe men aren't intellectually capable of it.
Variants have appeared becuase of that factor, "whitesplaining" obviously and believe me, that is the default state of many. Then there's of course, "thinsplaining". The weird thing about that is the belief is not that fat people are less intelligent than slimz, its that fatz know nothing at all, about themselves. It's a peculiar combination of low/no expectation and 'splaining.
So virtually everyone talking about fatness is a thinsplainer virtually all the time.
The term 'obesity' is created from this essentially subhuman double whammy. Once anyone is talking to you from there, they often become so mentally dysfunctional that it is a waste of time talking to them. If you're quick you can feel them sailing far away as this conveyance of the elective disconnect and disassociation of this construct manifest.
Even if it wasn't unnerving, it is boring beyond words. Boredom is a weapon of war, believe it.
You're expected to enter a remedial mindset for their unspeakable questions of the "How do you exist?" "How are you human" variety and you can get no further sense out of them, yet aren't allowed to be understandably infuriated.
You have to pretend they are talking sense and are your equal, when they felt it was a good use of their minds, to no longer be so.
Even mansplainers, as tiresome as they are believe women are conscious, just less intelligent than men as a group. Whereas to this, 'obesity' no intelligence at all, no consciousness of self, no inner direction. Yet they know this isn't true because they seek always to browbeat that very sentience into the admission that it doesn't exist.
It's like me saying men know nothing about being men and I know everything specifically because I'm not a man and have read studies about men. When men speak, I dismiss them completely as "biased". Even though everything I say about men, reads as a complement to women and therefore myself and is largely disorted to the point of inaccuracy.