I think this blog post is very enlightening on the subject. Oh, not with what the author posts as definitions. Someone actually acting in accordance with her stated definition is indeed acting inappropriately. No, the enlightenment comes from the example she uses.
Now, what we can ascertain from the description she provides is that a feminist made the accusation that when a particular insult is used against men it is somehow meant to dehumanize women. (Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me either.) At any rate, she leaves the wording of the original accusation. I suspect that is because the response (which she twists to identify as “mansplaining”) uses the wording of the accusation in order to make the defense. Also note that she has to “decode” (read: put words into someone’s mouth) the “mansplaining” in order to create the impression of condescension.
I personally suspect (though can’t be sure because the original wording of the accusation is omitted) that, if the blogger had included both the text of the accusation and the response without editing, interpretation or “decoding” that only the most militant feminists would see anything wrong with the response. Feminists actually use the term “mansplaining” to mean a man explaining something in a way a feminist doesn’t like (often defending against a false accusation made by the feminist.) Feel free to post disagreemen, by the way. I don’t pre-screen my comments. Harassment and advertising can be removed after the fact. Pre-screening is generally done to filter out dissent. And I don’t need to do that.