The next commenter to mansplain my content to me will receive a dissertation on mansplaining

Your comment may qualify if:

  • You encourge me to check out the work of Larry McPenisowner who knows a LOT about the subject in which I’ve just described my expertise.
  • You need to tell me that you like my work, but that the focus was off, then explain to me what the focus should have been using shaky logic.
  • You tell me that my question presents a false dilemma, and that a solution to the problem I presuppose already exists, then provide no links or names to back up this claim.
  • You make a tasteless and snarky joke which demonstrates your lack of interest in my work’s content, then use my negative reaction as proof of my irrationality.
  • You create a strawman and draw false parallels between two unrelated examples to “prove” your point.
  • You observe the content of my work with no specific criticisms of my conclusions, only a vague sense of cynicism.

ZOMG you guys are fucking killing me. Killing me. Just…try to see your posts through someone else’s eyes before you hit send. Or, Jesus, just fucking read the full post and know what citations I use before deciding to “recommend” more research.


Think of it this way, mansplainers: your opinion is like your penis. If you decide to show it to someone, it had better be after you’ve done some damn good listening.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.