In case anybody missed the obvious, Clinton appeared before the Benghazi inquisition to answer questions. One of the accusations that was leveled by liberals at the Republicans conducting the hearing was that she was mansplained.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced hours of questioning from the House Select Committee on Benghazi Thursday. As the video above shows, the hearing included some rather patronizing moments from male committee members who scolded Clinton for not answering their questions in a “yes” or “no” fashion and obsessively asked her if she needed to pause and read notes from staff members.
To quote from the movie Princess Bride, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” Mansplaining is the supposed action where a man lectures a woman in a condescending manner under the assumption that she is clueless. At least, that was the original definition. Now, it seems that it is considered to be mansplaining if someone is critical of a woman or in feminism. (source)
The Benghazi committee is not an example of mansplaining. Were the Republicans condescending to Clinton? Sure. Can one make the case that it was offensive? Yeah. However, condescending and offensive does not a mansplain make.
What we did see is an instance where Clinton had the upper hand and the Republicans were needing to get back in control. The tactics they used were ones of desperation typically seen in courtrooms. The forcing of Clinton to answer “yes” or “no” was them trying to trap her into saying something that could be taken out of context. If this was done by a liberal journalist, it would have been called “gotcha” journalism.