I remember back in 2011 and 2012 when the term "mansplaining" truly gained cultural attention and then reached its peak in 2015. The term was a feminist weapon used to silence any man who attempted to explain his disagreement with a woman. The point of the accusation was to immediately dismiss the man's argument, no matter how salient or valid, as mere sexism.
The feminist attack didn't really win any arguments, however. It was often used by the feminist to make her feel like she didn't have to take what was being said to her seriously. She could immediately dismiss any points made as being sexist in nature and, thus, continue forward with her disproven beliefs or points in good conscience.
Today, the term "mansplaining" isn't used as much because reality hits hard, and accusing reality of being sexist when it's just reality only makes it hit harder. So it was fascinating when the word reappeared again in order to describe J.D. Vance's outstanding moment during the vice-presidential debate when he called out and corrected CBS debate moderators Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan when they tried to fact-check Vance on the topic of Haitian migrants. This was actually done against the stated rules CBS put forth, and since they were going to break the rules to try to make Vance look bad, Vance decided to set the record straight as they tried to shut him down.
His comeback was so good despite the attempt to stop him that they eventually had to shut his microphone off to stop him.
Later on, self-proclaimed "gender bias expert" Amy Diehl, Ph.D. said "JD Vance talking over the female moderators. We women have all been there. Overtalked by an entitled mansplainer."
MSNBC's Nicole Wallace also used the term to describe the moment.
"I actually think if you're a woman, that might be the worst moment JD Vance had, because he was going to mansplain right over that mute button," said Wallace. "I think that a lot of women in positions of authority that should command respect just by virtue of that dynamic will see themselves, and some do, the disrespect of them and talked over."
They were ripped apart by the public for their cowardice of throwing sexist accusations at Vance for merely defending himself, and quite a bit of that came from women.
Over at The Federalist, Margot Cleveland wrote a stellar defense of Vance:
That was no mansplaining: That was a vice-presidential candidate in a debate properly and respectfully handling the unprofessional conduct of a moderator. Had Margaret Brennan been Michael Brennan, the same scene would have unfolded. And the only reason anyone would criticize Vance for his handling of Ms. Brennan’s breach of the debate rules is because they want to bash the Republican candidate.
Well, that, or they believe women really can’t handle the tough job of moderating high-profile debates, in which case, there are two options: Female moderators either need to man up or if they can’t take heat, stay in the kitchen.
Harsh words? Hardly.
Cleveland is making a very good point here. Feminists talk a lot about being equal and just as good as men, yet cower and cry behind accusations of social sins when confronted by a man making a good point that challenges theirs. The term "mansplaining" is not, and was never, a solid method of attack. There was never any substance to the word because substance never came with it. It literally requires the accused to be arguing purely on the basis that he is a man, and he is right on the basis of being a man.
But that's not what happened. In fact, the only time I've ever witnessed a man saying he's right because he's a man is when he's joking and trying to get under the skin of women he either has a close relationship with or feminists who are too easy to trigger.
Face it. "Mansplaining" died a while back because it was a stupid accusation that only made the person using it look weak. People using it today look like a person trying to wear fashions from 30 years ago, thinking it still looks cool, not realizing they look ridiculous.
But more than that, the usage of it in order to explain Vance's moment proves that Vance was right, and he really got them. They had no defense for the onslaught of facts the threw at them, and they had no excuse for cutting his microphone after breaking the rules. So the only recourse they had was to wheel out a dead feminist accusation that looks even worse than it was originally wheeled out years ago.
And if that's all you have, then you have nothing.
