Condescension

How do you deal with people who belittle you?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “How do you deal with people who belittle you and try to sound like they’re smarter than Einstein?”

I think it’s important to separate how one feels about the language a person uses to communicate with others and their expressions of intent.

If one is being condescending, it’s generally quite clear in their word choices and the subject they focus on when conveying their thoughts.

In other words, instead of focusing on the subject, they focus on the person, which, in this case, would mean you.

In a communication dynamic, a person’s estimation of a relative degree of intelligence between oneself and the other results in a subjective interpretation of the other’s intent. In other words, when people feel insecure and conversing with someone whose language choices are intimidating, they can often misinterpret the other’s intent.

They may feel that person is choosing “big words” to puff themselves up when that’s not their intent. It would be a misinterpretation of another’s actions due to one’s insecurity. It is important to separate one’s feelings from the interaction to ensure one’s reading of the dynamic isn’t coloured by one’s biases.

They may not be condescendingly treating them and merely use language they are most comfortable with when attempting to communicate with someone else. (As someone who has been accused of using pretentious language myself, I appreciate the opportunity to explain how my language choices are primarily intuitive and from an attempt at being as accurate in my communications as possible. I cannot speak differently any more than I can change my vanishing hair. It’s just who I am. Every one of us has a natural style of communication that works for each of us, and it doesn’t mean you have to “read between the lines” to ascertain what I “really mean.” — This brings to mind a favourite song of mine by The Animals, “Don’t let me be misunderstood.” –

)

Often, a person isn’t “trying to sound like they’re smarter than Einstein” but instead chooses words they believe are the most accurate representations of their thoughts.

As mentioned above, their focus is the key to spotting the difference. If they focus their responses on you as a person while choosing obtuse language to try to confuse you, then you know they are being condescending.

It might help to know that when someone is condescending, they also convey their intimidation through the discussion. They may feel that the effort spent in communication is not worth their time, or their goal is to make themselves feel better at your expense. In such a case, you will know that whatever information they have to convey could be more credible.

A naturally intelligent and well-informed person is usually happy to share their insights with others in an agnostic manner — as long as the other party is respectful in their attitude.

You can see that everywhere here on Quora. Some brilliant people here patiently explain simple concepts in great detail because they want to share what they have learned. Sharing is caring in this context.

When a person behaves condescendingly, they’re not interested in sharing or caring about others and let that be known in many different ways, while condescension is just one.

Another example of disparagement is providing hints of insights and then turning the tables on the person they’re speaking to, informing them that they should know the rest, and filling in the conceptual gaps on their own. If they can’t, they imply something is wrong with their victim’s character.

If you are uncertain whether someone is condescending, the most effective strategy is playing dumb.

Seriously.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but it works as a strategy.

Straight up, ask them what they mean with a confused expression to make it clear you’re not following their words and piecing them together in a way that makes sense to you. Be sincere in wanting clarification, and that will allow them to reflect on their attitude.

By playing dumb, you can defuse their defence mechanisms. You can encourage them to re-evaluate their communications in ways where their internal defences are not on alert to bring out condescension as a dialectical weapon to (pre-emptively) defend themselves.

This means that condescension and abusive attitudes are generally all born of insecurity on their own, and they often occur through subconscious responses to the person they are interacting with.

That person may not realize they’ve been condescending or abusive, and playing dumb is like knocking the wind out of their defence sails.

If they can be assured you’re not a threat, they are forced to re-evaluate their communications and make an effort to focus on the subject at hand.

Ultimately, by playing dumb, you may gain their trust and develop a valuable pipeline to an insightful source of information.

If playing dumb doesn’t work, then you know their information isn’t worth the effort to parse. They’re too caught up in their egotism to share their insights and are best left alone.

I hope this helps.

Cheerz

Are “mansplaining” and “femsplaining” valid examples of misogyny and misandry?

This post is a response to a question initially posed on Quora, and can also be accessed via my profile there: https://www.quora.com/profile/Antonio-Amaral-1/

I’ve never encountered “femsplaining” before this question. It sounds like it was made up for this question to make it appear more egalitarian.

“Mansplaining” became a prominent description of misogynistic behaviours and attitudes in situations where men behaved in condescending ways toward women.

Misogyny is widespread in our patriarchy because men often have no clue how to handle equality. Men have been conditioned from a young age to view themselves as superior to women. Men are also subjected to conditioning, which causes them to interpret life as a power game.

Combining those two characteristics of a typical male upbringing with toxic competitiveness breeding fragile egos results in a prevalence of poisonous masculinity throughout society that we’ve grown to know and love.

The consequence of their conditioning has resulted in a high frequency of example scenarios where men condescend toward women on a wide variety of levels in a diversity of conditions.

One of the most stereotypical examples is an auto repair shop where the statistics show that women are often overcharged for repairs while being condescended to when discussing those repairs.

The standing bias of a significant proportion of men is that they understand automotives better than women and often resort to condescension as a means of gaslighting a victim to get away with taking advantage of their perceived naivety.

This dynamic of condescension isn’t limited to gender interactions and occurs everywhere a power game exists.

Everyone experiences it repeatedly throughout their lives, usually when someone attempts to convince them of nonsense.

At any rate, since men have been conditioned to think of themselves as superior within a gender power dynamic, they more often resort to condescension when manipulating women. It happens so frequently while men victimize women that the term mansplaining was invented to introduce humour into a problematic situation of discrimination as a means of raising awareness of the problem in society.

We employ similar awareness-raising tactics in situations where power dynamics are statistically significant.

I just answered another question before this about the slogan “Black Lives Matter.”

It’s not quite as humorous as “mansplaining,” The goal of the expression is the same: to raise awareness of a severe issue of discrimination in a society that renders an entire demographic as victims so often that it can’t be ignored and must be addressed.

This strategy for raising awareness is why gay pride parades exist.

It’s a way of restoring balance to an unequal power dynamic.

The term “femsplaining” is a reaction to the effectiveness of “mansplaining” and is a defensive reaction to that success. This is how “All Lives Matter” was conceived as well.

Those who are used to being in a dominant position of power begin to feel insecure enough about equality that they interpret it as oppression. Since they struggle with admitting to the abuse they condone, they react defensively by appropriating an effective strategy to convert it into a counter-weapon against the strategy responsible for their disempowerment.

There is no such thing as “femsplaining” for that reason, and misandry may exist but only as a reaction to extensive abuse by men.

Men become misogynistic by conditioning that teaches them to adopt socially acceptable aggression toward women, while women become misandrist by being victimized.

Even though the terms are intended to reflect equal and opposite conditions, they are not the same.

When a woman condescends toward someone, and they happen to be male, that’s a coincidence, not a stereotype.

Mansplaining is a stereotype.