I really enjoyed the movie but I couldn't help but giggle and self reflect at how much Hugh Grants character reminded me of myself with all his little factoids and logic games. I am an ENTJ (debater) and have been told by people that i am an annoying mansplainer. I have mostly ignored it and kept with my ways but after seeing this guy mansplain religon up close and in reddit know it all style, i have sort of got the ick with how i "educate" people. His display was pure cringe and all i could see during him presenting his argument was a reflection of myself dodging questions and finding different angles to refute points. In the end his arguments and his point were totally meaningless. A hollow shell lacking substance. There was no grand "AHA!" or cool thing in the depths of the basement. Just a guy who was obsessed with being right by any means necessary. He was just justifying his sickness because he always has to be right and have the upper hand. He is just an example of a mainsplainer that took it too far which is scary to see how far it can go. Great movie and has caused me to reflect quite a bit. Do you think the writers intent was to create an annoying know it all type of guy? Am i wrong for distilling the whole of the movie to just an overdose of Mansplaining?
BTW: Mansplaining is short for "man explaining" basically where a man explains things to women because he thinks that they wont understand due to having lower intelligence than himself.