Mansplaining is still a thing — try some “fauxtitude” to shut it down

Salon - Apr 29th, 2025

The article discusses the persistent issue of mansplaining and other toxic behaviors in the workplace, highlighting how they contribute to high employee turnover and significant costs to businesses. It introduces 'fauxitude' as a strategy for addressing such challenges. Fauxitude, or faux gratitude, involves responding to undermining behavior with a professional and positive tone, aimed at reclaiming credit and fostering a collaborative environment. This approach, while sometimes seen as passive-aggressive, is presented as a way for women and marginalized groups to assert themselves without appearing confrontational.

The broader context reveals systemic issues in communication expectations and biases in the workplace. Women and marginalized individuals often face harsher judgments for their communication styles, impacting their career advancement. The article underscores that while fauxitude can help manage immediate interactions, it does not address the root cause of gender bias and communication inequities. The need for employers to foster inclusive environments and actively address biases is emphasized, suggesting that such efforts could reduce turnover and create more equitable workplaces. The narrative advocates for empathy and proactive engagement in addressing workplace inequities, aiming for a future where diverse voices are equally valued.

Gender Bias Mansplaining Fauxitude Workplace Communication Employee Turnover

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article effectively highlights important issues related to gender dynamics and communication in the workplace, offering practical advice through the concept of "fauxitude." However, its overall quality is impacted by a lack of specific citations and empirical evidence to support key claims, which affects its accuracy and source quality. While the article is timely and addresses topics of public interest, it could benefit from a more balanced perspective by including additional viewpoints and data-driven insights. The piece is engaging and readable, with a clear structure and relatable anecdotes, but it could enhance its impact by incorporating more interactive elements and ensuring that all claims are well-supported. Despite these limitations, the article contributes to ongoing discussions about workplace inclusivity and gender equality, with the potential to provoke meaningful debate and reflection.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims that are not fully substantiated with specific sources, which affects its overall accuracy. For instance, it cites that 57% of women have experienced mansplaining, but does not reference a specific study or data source to support this claim. Additionally, the assertion that toxic behaviors like mansplaining cost businesses a trillion dollars annually is a significant economic claim that requires verification from reliable economic studies or reports. Without these sources, the truthfulness and precision of these claims remain questionable.

The piece also discusses the concept of "fauxitude" as a strategy to handle mansplaining, but this is presented more as an anecdotal approach rather than one backed by empirical evidence. While it may be a practical suggestion, its effectiveness is not supported by research in the article, which limits its factual basis.

Overall, the article raises important issues about workplace dynamics and gender biases, but the lack of specific citations and empirical evidence for key claims hinders its factual accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the experiences of women in the workplace, particularly in relation to mansplaining and communication biases. It presents a strong viewpoint on the challenges women face and the strategies they can employ, such as "fauxitude." While this focus is important, the article does not extensively explore perspectives from men or the broader organizational context that might contribute to or mitigate these issues.

There is an implicit bias towards highlighting the negative impacts of male-dominated communication styles on women, which is a valid perspective but could benefit from additional viewpoints. For example, including insights from male colleagues or organizational leaders on how they perceive and address these issues could provide a more balanced view. Additionally, the article could explore how different industries or cultures might experience these dynamics differently.

Overall, while the article effectively highlights the challenges women face, it could achieve better balance by incorporating a wider range of perspectives and solutions.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it accessible to a broad audience. It uses straightforward language to describe the concept of "fauxitude" and the issues women face in the workplace, which aids in reader comprehension.

The structure of the article is logical, beginning with an anecdote to illustrate the issue of mansplaining, followed by discussions on potential solutions and broader workplace dynamics. This progression helps maintain a coherent flow of information.

However, the article could improve clarity by providing more concrete examples or definitions of key terms, such as "mansplaining," to ensure all readers have a shared understanding. Additionally, clearly distinguishing between anecdotal evidence and empirical research would enhance the clarity of the arguments presented.

Source quality

The article lacks direct citations or references to authoritative sources, which affects the credibility and reliability of the information presented. While it mentions studies and polls, such as those by Gallup, it does not provide specific references or links to these sources, making it difficult for readers to verify the claims independently.

The article relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal experiences shared by individuals like Jehann Biggs and Maria Chamberlain. While these anecdotes add a personal touch, they do not substitute for robust data or research findings that could substantiate the broader claims made in the article.

For improved source quality, the article would benefit from including specific studies, data, and expert opinions that can be independently verified, enhancing the overall credibility of the content.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the issues of mansplaining and workplace communication dynamics, but it lacks transparency in terms of the sources and methodologies behind the claims. For example, it mentions "recent studies" and a "2024 Gallup poll" without detailing the methodologies or findings of these studies, leaving readers without a clear understanding of the basis for these claims.

Furthermore, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the perspectives presented. While it is written by a journalist with a background in speech-language pathology, there is no explicit discussion of how this expertise informs the article's content or conclusions.

Greater transparency could be achieved by providing links to studies, explaining the methodologies used in cited research, and disclosing any potential biases or influences on the article's perspective.