Talk:womansplaining

womansplain
The entry ‘womansplaining’ cites no attestations. It seems to have been added out of a perceived need for there to be a counterpart to ‘mansplaining’, but I can’t find any evidence that the word is actually used anywhere. Sephistication (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the bug where show/hide buttons don't display happening again? Because the entry has quotations (although the ones sourced to e.g. the Mail Online are of dubious "durability"), visible if you click the "[quotations ▼]" button. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to have five quotations, but they only cover two years - we need another from outside that time frame. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Or do you mean to RFV "womansplain" (I've added a subheader for that entry, and links to both, especially to help with the eventual aWa-archiving on this section), which indeed has no citations in the entry? (It has two, of unclear "durability", on its Citations: page.) Incidentally, its definition should possibly be brought more into line with the noun's. - -sche (discuss) 18:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Womansplain is cited (I found a cite for the past participle on Usenet). Still need a later cite for womansplaining. Khemehekis (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"It seems to have been added out of a perceived need for there to be a counterpart to ‘mansplaining’," - Not really. It's not a perceived need, it's a word that exists. Womansplaining DOES exist, only those who use the word mansplaining will say the it (womansplaining) doesn't exist. If the definition of the word 'mansplaining' means for a man to be condescending to a woman, then that means womansplaining exists, because the word in itself like the counterpart means women can indeed, be condescending towards men.