The Serena Williams controversy is bringing the notion of "mansplaining" into the media spotlight once again. IMO, mansplaining is a sexist and invalid term, used as a manipulative debate tactic. It isn't a reasonable or valid counter to a valid point in a debate; it's just a suppressive technique.

If you ever debate an SJW feminist, eventually it's likely you'll be accused of "mansplaining." Mansplaining is a term feminists use to dismiss or attempt to shut down any argument made by anyone male that disagrees with them or provides a rational counterpoint to what they say. Mansplaining is nothing- it's a completely made up term that's nothing more that a conversational trick and debate tactic that feminists use whenever they can't hold their own in a fair and honest debate- make a good point they can't counter, and they'll accuse you of mansplaining. It's a clever conversational trick because it has a built in self-defense mechanism constructed specifically as a debate tactic- as soon as they say you're mansplaining, any logical explanation or source you give is just further mansplaining, and they'll say that you're "mansplaining mansplaining."

The hypocrisy is of course that so often when a feminist says a man is mansplaining, in reality, it's she who is womansplaining by automatically dismissing an issue or source that she doesn't like, even though it may be true and make sense. Here's how it may work:

A feminist makes a claim about how the education system favors men and gives them an unfair advantage. You then counter by saying boys earn lower grades in all subjects and all ages

You might also point out studies that suggest female teachers grade boys unfairly, giving them lower grades for the same work

To which the feminist may say "O, look, you're just mansplaining." Which of course doesn't make sense, because you're providing indisputably valid counterpoints. However, if you point out that it makes no sense to just dismiss the data as "mansplaining", a feminist will then say "Oh, you're just mansplaining mansplaining now." It's an impossible argument to "win" because feminist arguments are intentionally constructed to be difficult to refute in debate, rather than be intellectual or rational valid. The "mansplaining" argument is a very weak and disingenuous argument that's nothing more than a distracting conversation trick. It's not valid or sensible in anyway, and means nothing. It's entirely made up by feminists who use it whenever they want, and say you're not allowed to disagree or else you're mansplaining anymore. It's a common feature of feminist debate tricks for them to design the wording in such a way that they say it's impossible for them to be wrong, because any disagreement is violating the very thing you talk about. It's just like the line "women can't be sexist because sexism=prejudice+power", that no matter what a feminist says or does, or what anti-male remark she says, if you ever call it out, you'll get that line, and it becomes impossible to argue against because no matter how logical your argument is, they just repeat that line and say you have to be wrong because you are male. These are lines that may sound well constructed in a debate, but in reality they mean nothing. Of course, this post itself would likely be described as mansplaining. Sometimes when I make this arguement in debate, I'll see a reply like "o, he's so close to getting it, it's like getting trapped in your own web."

Whenever you are accused of mansplaining, it probably means you have won the argument on a rational and objective level. But the SJW movement isn't built on reality or honesty, it's built on one-liners and convoluted wordplay and trickery. The SJW movement is built on buzzwords and hashtags that get lots of likes or upvotes, rather than make sense. They may "sound good" superficially, but are intellectually hollow.