Well that is accurate…

Mansplaining is a behavior. It is a man arrogantly talking down to a woman assuming she knows less than him by virtue of being a woman or despite evidence to the contrary. If their defense to that was, “I just thought I was smarter than you and needed to demonstrate that, but it had nothing to do with your gender. How dare you judge me for being sexist.” Then… well, I feel like they still need to examine that behavior.

Sure, my point was that a single instance outside of other context means that you cannot necessarily discern a pattern of behavior upon which to base your conclusion into which kind of asshole he is being. You could be innacurate in assuming he is sexist as well as assuming he isn’t. If complete accuracy is required, then you would need to not make a conclusion at all and let the comment slide without feedback until you have more data. I’m saying that it is more important to call them out than to worry about the exact accuracy, to not let the comment slide, to make sure they know that, in some way, it was inappropriate.

One’s experience may lead one to make some assumptions that are incorrect in this context, but I don’t feel like that is the important part that you should critique. Either she says nothing, calls him a sexist, or calls him out but doesnt point out the sexism even if there is unconfirmed sexism involved. I’m saying either of the latter is reasonable under the circumstances.

If you dont care about being accurate in calling out antisocial behaviour, how do you think the person expressing said antisocial behaviour will understand that interaction?

If they were being sexist and you don’t point that out, wouldn’t that be inaccurate?

She wasn’t wrong though. It does happen spontaneously in that it is happening without apparent external cause. There is an external cause, the change in pressure, but it is not apparent. And most people are aware that water boils at low pressures at room temps. He even said it was “basic thermo”, so of course a NASA astronaut would know about this basic scientific phenomenon, as would most people.

Sure. But it gives the appearance of sexism. Who gives a fuck if he is being an asshole if you mislabeled the kind of asshole he is. I don’t.

Sure, but being an arrogant prick that thinks they’re smarter than anyone else, regardless of gender, is already a thing that should be derided. Having only a single or few instances of this behavior being aimed at women as an example of his arrogance may mistakenly lead one to attribute that to misogyny instead of a general prickishness behavior, sure. But that’s a perfectly understandable assumption to make in that situation and the mistake of calling them the wrong kind of asshole, I feel, is less of a concern than him, indeed, being an asshole.

The term “mansplaining” is not just about a man being pedantic. It is a man being pedantic or overexplaining to a woman either about something she is likely more knowledgeable on than he is or about something that is such common knowledge it should be assumed that she knows these facts as well as he does. It is a demonstration of misogyny through the assumption that you, a man, knows better than her, a woman, despite all liklihood to the contrary and yet you condescend to her anyway. It’s the arrogance and gender bias that is the problem, not the pedantry itself.

Seems like it will be a one sided conversation. They’re all dead.