Back in the days of Miss Manners, it was considered rude not to try to include others in a conversation. Now, women are to be shut out, and so excluded from the informal networks which open social, and career, doors.

A favorite response to the U.N. tweet.

'There's already a word for mansplaining. It's called being patronizing."

Wymyn cannot patronize. PATRONizing is the fachist sick MANinfestation of the sick mind of the PATRiarchy invading wymyn's thought spaces.
Women can only be the victims of patronization and never its purpatraitors because patronization is sicknees of the male mind.

Not to be a pedant, but the correct word is "pedantic".

A woman can be just as much an accomplished pedant as a man. You go, girl!

BTW, isn't a woman who expounds upon the concept of "mansplaining" guilty of "womansplaining"?

At least among my (male) friends, explaining stuff is a big part of our conversation. One guy from an auto company was explaining how they jigger the pollution controls for almost an hour. We kept asking questions because for guys it is always useful to learn something.
If a guy is explaining something wrong, the other guys say "no, I dont' think so" and correct him. Women think a guy should just "know" that she knows something already and get insulted if his esp doesn't work (just like in dating).
Sorry to our hostess here but in general if you want something explained, ask a guy.

On voter repression, especially by Gov. Brian Kemp (Georgia):

Gojus Joe: "ALL states purge voter rolls on some regular basis. ELIGIBLE voters in Georgia are NOT deprived of the right to vote. Have you heard of hundreds of thousands of Georgians complaining that their voting rights were taken away? Of course not."

Dave Doran: "I suppose a lawsuit isn't really complaining, is it."

Sept. 5, 2020:

https://www.albanyherald.com/news/federal-judge-refuses-to-dismiss-georgia-voter-purge-lawsuit/article_8b3a83d2-ef94-11ea-9b3c-9b323f05aa52.html

Forgive me if anyone sees my raising this subject as womansplaining. :-)

But I don't know just how much media coverage Kemp has gotten for this, over the last eight years...

I don't think it's petty to expect people to ask themselves, first, "does my audience have any desire to hear this information?"

After all, if you're in the workplace but the information is not work-related, then we're moving into the social sphere. In which case, the classic etiquette rule is that you talk about what OTHER people want to talk about, not what you want to talk about. Otherwise, you're likely to get labeled as a know-it-all or a bore - or both. Regardless of any gender factors.

Aside from that, as I've mentioned before, what's wrong with expecting the speaker to start by politely asking "what do you know about X" before proceeding? It's a great way to save face, after all. Even if the listener doesn't have a college degree in X, that person could still be a great reader.

Example, from a 2008 Scott Anderson article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html

Excerpt from the first half:

...Quite inadvertently, the British gas conversion proved that the incidence of suicide across an entire society could be radically reduced, upending the conventional wisdom about suicide in the process. Or rather it should have upended the conventional wisdom, for what is astonishing today is how little-known the British coal-gas story is even among mental-health professionals who deal with suicide. Last November, I attended a youth suicide-prevention conference in New Hampshire at which Catherine Barber, a member of the Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health, gave a PowerPoint presentation on creating physical barriers to suicide — or “means restriction,” in public-health parlance —to a large group of mental-health officials and school counselors. While giving a brief history of the approach, she came to several slides describing the British gas-conversion phenomenon and paused.

“Is everyone familiar with the British coal-gas story?” she asked. “If so, I’ll just skip over this.”

Among the 150 or so attendees, only about a half-dozen hands went up. Instead, most looked quite baffled...
_____________________________________

As NPR wrote, two days after that article:

...Anderson points to another example where simply making a change in people's access to instruments of suicide dramatically lowered the suicide rate. In England, death by asphyxiation from breathing oven fumes had accounted for roughly half of all suicides up until the 1970s, when Britain began converting ovens from coal gas, which contains lots of carbon monoxide, to natural gas, which has almost none. During that time, suicides plummeted roughly 30 percent — and the numbers haven't changed since...

"just as it exercises men's unsupported self-confidence."
Poor girl. She must hang out with the U N fizzle-dicks - a demonstrably incompetent group. Hey girlie, find someone with real responsibility. They won't waste your time.

I finally learned.
When I saw former girl friends about to FUBAR, I'd stop, and ask myself the question, "is her FUBAR going to adversely affect me?".
If the answer was not I would keep my mouth shut instead of committing the sin of mansplaining, and let her proceed down the road to self-perdition.
It the answer was yes, rather than commit the sin of mansplaining and having to deal with the resultant ranting as well as the fall out from her ill thought out course of action, I would distance myself from her and terminate the relationship, and watch the train wreck from a distance.
I try to do the same at work, when ever possible, get myself reassigned rather than try to prevent a train wreck. I don't get labeled as a mansplainer or go down with the ship.