I need you all to focus your thoughts and send some chi energy my way because HAARP has fucked up my brain so much that I can't even answer this simple question: Does Erick really think that mansplaining (my browser immediately put some red squiggly lines below that word and tells me I probably meant "mainspring" or "plainsman") is a thing or is he trolling his viewer base? Or did he go out of his way to find the worst attacks on that concept and ridicule them because, well, they are ridiculous?

Nobody in he video adequately demolished the word "mansplaining" so it is my duty to be the shining beacon of reason in this cesspool of pure hate, misguided souls and logical fallacies we encounter in the form of internet comment sections. "Mansplaining" is a sexist term. Even if condescendingly explaining something is mainly done by men to women this is not a good reason to give it a name which refers to an entire sex because that seems to either imply that all men do it or no women do it. My hypothesis (see, I'm using a science word, this is how you know that I'm smarter than you and that you can 110% trust that this comment is infalliable in every way including propper grammar) is that if a man joined a group discussion on parenting there is a high likelihood that some women will "mansplain" parenting to that hypothetical man because they see themselves as naturally more knowledgeable with regards to child care. What is called "mansplaining" is just what happens when someone presumes they know a lot more about a topic than their counterpart which in some cases happens when sexist men see their female peers as less competent such that they resort to "mainspalining". Basically what I'm saying here is #NotAllMen and #SomeWomenDoItTooEvenIfYouMightHaveConvincedYourselfOtherwise. Even if 90% of "mansplaining" is perpetrated by men towards women it shouldn't have an entire sex attached to it the same way that even if 90% of a specific category of crime is committed by a certain race or ethnicity that crime shouldn't be associated with it. As an example I think that nobody would be okay with referring to being killed in a drive-by shooting in a poor American suburb as part of gang violence as "being african-americanized". Yes it's a bad example and it's a lot more racist than "mansplaining" is sexist, but it's the same flaw behind it. Liberal cucks like me would like to live in a world where everyone is judged by their own actions and not by those of members of some more or less arbitrary group of people they happen to be part of, a membership they didn't choose but were born into. I don't do mansplaining but it hurts my precious fee-fees when tumblr feminists basically tell me that I'm bad for having a dingdong flopping around in my undergarments just because a lot of other wielders of aforementioned dingdongs are meanies.

If Erick really thinks that manspalining is a problem and doesn't see the issue of giving it that sexist name I think that my worldview is going to collapse the same way Tower 7 did on that fateful day in September 2001: Brought down by laser beams of a hostile alien invasion the American government did not want to admit they were currently fighting ever since they pretended to invade the alien's territory we know as the moon in good ol' 69 which was clearly in violation of the Treaty of American-Alien Relations Demarcation (TARD) signed in Area 51 by a band of time travelers we know as Elvis and Tupac, who flew a rocket ship which looked like this: ())::::::::::D~~~