@max.demianΘα συμφωνήσω σε αυτά που λες, το mansplaining όπως το θέτεις (και υπάρχει σαν έννοια), ξεφεύγει από τη ξερολίαση και πηγαίνει προς την υποτίμηση.. however (ακολουθεί απόσπασμα από wikipedia, για τη λέξη mansplaining):"The usefulness of the term has been disputed. Given its gender-specific nature and negative connotation, Lesley Kinzel described it as inherently biased, essentialist, dismissive, and a double standard. Author Cathy Young called it "a pejorative term for supposedly obtuse and arrogant male arguments on gender, apparently now also applied to female dissent". In a 2016 Washington Post article, Young wrote that the term "mansplaining" is just one of a number of terms using "man" as a derogatory prefix, and that this convention is part of a "current cycle of misandry." Solnit herself has rejected the term as overly gendered, arguing that "[you] don't fight patronizing by patronizing in return."As the word became more popular, some commentators complained that misappropriation and overuse had in some instances diluted its original meaning. Liz Cookman writing for The Guardian says that the term "reeks of gender essentialism – the idea that specific physical, social or cultural traits are native to a particular gender" and considers it degrading. Joshua Sealy-Harrington and Tom McLaughlin write in The Globe and Mail that the term has occasionally been used as an ad hominem to silence debate. They suggest that faulty arguments should instead be refuted. Denby Weller, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald said the use of the term is hypocritical. She described it as "generalist sexism" and a "gendered slur"."Το κομμάτι που αναφέρεις για το πως παρουσιάζονται οι άντρες στα παιδικά και στα βιβλία για παιδιά, είναι πολύ σοβαρό - έχει το λόγο και την εξήγησή του, αλλά ανήκει σε άλλη κουβέντα.
