Can Someone Please Explain Mansplaining (Rant)

Disclaimer, minor information such as links to articles, names, and otherwise are being omitted to protect the privacy of those involved. I could post screenshots to back up my claims but for the interest of others privacy I would rather not.

So in the past 24 hours I was told I was mansplaining when answering a question someone asked... And I was told that by a completely different person. For some context, on facebook a friend of mine posted a link to a news article about a kid getting reduced and delayed punishment for sexual assault and child pornography (max of 25 years here, he got 90 days) to which I stated in a comment:

This honestly makes me sick seeing people get away with sh!t like this. The fact that he got his sentence delayed to allow him to continue his life is basically just helping set the precedent that the legal system has no problems with sexual assault and it disgusts me.

By the way, I hadn't heard this story before and the date on (and in the article) all say 2017, is it actually this old? Because lots of the comments on it are from within the past few hours.

This was the first comment in a thread of comments. The first comment I received was:

No? Why does time affect the validity of a case in this situation? This information is just now coming to the public’s attention so whether it happened in 2017 or even 1993, this guy is still a sexual predator on a university campus which is of much concern.

Now the reason why time is of validity is the original poster of the link had captioned the link (wrote a post) discussing and putting forth the idea of setting up petitions and otherwise to actually appeal the decision of the court and this means that, in order to do that, time is a major factor. The reason time is a factor is 2 part, firstly if he had served his sentence then the only way to change the sentence is to get new evidence admitted that can reopen the case (evidence has to be obtained legally and had to be in existence (mostly) since before the sentence existed with some exceptions such as a confession, that can come into existence afterwards) and secondly is that bringing up a case and fighting to appeal it when there are prime cases that are more recent (and can actually be changed) would be more beneficial.

This is where the original poster responded to my comment by saying:

(message 1) This is an error on their website. They just tweeted this article [link to tweet]

(message 2)
And even if this WAS a year ago, a more recent situation would be Chance Macdonald, who molested a girl and then had his sentence (an intermittent jail time, so he would only go to jail on the weekends) delayed so he could do a Deloitte internship.

(message 3)
Sorry but you’re way out of line.

(message 4)
its also in the sun [link to article]

The next message was sent by me and is 2 part, first in response to the first comment I received and second in response to the 4 previous responses sent by the original poster.

So in reference to your question [responder 1] is if it was in 2017 then, since he would have served his sentence by then, there would be no way to appeal the decision and have the sentence changed. Since, as [original poster] stated, the date of the article being posted is an error (and it should be 2018) I would say that it is fine then for this. Being upset about something solves nothing when you cannot do anything about it but with more recent things you can change the outcome without requiring new evidence. Once a sentence is served, the only way to appeal the decision to add more time to a sentence is finding new evidence that was committed before the sentence was served.

Also I am out of line? I am not saying that what he did was right and that I understand being upset (livid) with the situation but if it were that old that there are things that the energy could be better spent on. I agree he shouldn't be allowed on campus and should get a full sentence for both crimes (roughly 20-25 years in [country] as child pornography has a max sentence of 5-10 years and sexual assault is 5-15 years) and I don't agree with the delay on the sentence and would personally say that whomever sentenced the guy should be disbarred at most and at minimum take a proper training on the situation and be forced to talk to victims of sexual assault, in my personal opinion.

This led to a portion of context where the original poster truly misunderstood me and makes me think that there is some, well ,not reading going on.

(original poster) [op] being upset doesn't solve anything. Speaking up does. Hence, why I started [facebook page]

My Response:

You are right that being upset alone doesn't but if people are upset then they are more likely to take action.

Their response to that:

exactly. You need to be riled up to find your passion. So I really don't get why your point is.

My response to that:

My point is that if this story was from 2017 then there would be no way to change the sentencing (since sentence hasn't been serve yet new evidence isn't required, exactly) but since it hasn't been served yet then people working together can change the outcome and actually set a precedent for future cases (something that would be good)

Their response:

but it’s not from 2017 and a quick google search would’ve shown you that. And I’m not sure if it can be changed. Nothing happened in the Chance Macdonald case with respect to his sentence as far as I know. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to try.

My response:

I know, my point was if it was old, if, not that it was old

This is where Responder 2 comes in:

[op]I’m pretty sure there are things your own energy could be better spent on than mansplaining sexual assault law but ok. Even if it happened 20 years ago it’s still something worth being angry about/raising awareness of.
You picked a weird battle to fight.

Now this here is why the title is can someone explain mansplaining? First of all, it isn't sexual assault law that prevents a sentence from being changed after being served without new evidence.... its just law, period. It wouldn't matter if it were murder or otherwise. Next, I am not the only one that replied to the original post saying such a thing (another person stated something extremely similar) and yet people say that I was mansplaining... like is it automatically mansplaining if man corrects a girl when she is wrong? By the way, the people I was explaining this legal crap to, none of them are lawyers... their major of study is gender studies. Not that I am a lawyer, my extent of legal knowledge comes from talking to lawyers during my parents divorce, 3 semesters of high school legal studies, and 2 weeks of job shadowing in the local courthouse (1 week following around a lawyer, 3 days with a judge, 2 days with a clerk, and a couple days where I basically sat there watching court in session). So I am not a lawyer, but that also doesn't mean that I am wrong. Anyways, now for my response to this one commenter stating that I am mansplaining I became real condescending real fast because, as far as I can see, the use of the term mansplaining is literally just an ad hominem where one tries to discredit my arguments because I am a man (literally sexist)

[responder 2] I am going to correct you (mansplain as you would say) as it is just law, not specific to sexual assault. Another thing is I shall refer you to previous comments and add that there is so much sexual assault happening right now that without a proper precedent of someone getting a serious punishment for it, there really is only a bleak future.
Take this from my perspective (as a male, I know) If we look back in history and every college guy gets a small slap on the wrist like this guy, or less, than in the future when decisions like this come up a judge is more likely to rule in favour of that chosen by those that came before them. However, if we battle tooth and nail against a sentence while we can to get it extended to a proper sentence for the crimes committed then a precedent is set that people wont stand up for that kind of thing. Yes I know you will see this as mansplaining but if there is nothing we can do about the conviction anymore than best bet is to move on and fight the ones we can affect while we still can. So I agree that raising awareness is good, but people need to be aware that this problem is happening now, not 20 years ago.

A weird battle to fight? Most of this thread has been a misunderstanding not a fight (at least from my perspective where I misunderstood, initially, that the article was recent and [original poster] misunderstood my intent).

---

So please, explain to me what mansplaining is and how exactly (while ignoring the last response which was intentionally condescending as I lose all respect for people that attack you to discredit arguments without explaining themselves)