For a mansplanation grand slam, the story needs to end with her turning out to be the author of the book, a possibility that had never occurred to the mayor.
Ha ha ha ha haa ha HA HA HA!!
Oh my, thanks for the good laugh, dearie. 
Personally, I generally have quite a bit of tolerance for the annoyance of “mansplaining” because I know from personal experience that the inclination to show off one’s knowledge to other people, regardless of whether they actually need it, affects people of any gender.
However, there’s a significant difference between natural tendency and cultural normalization. And yes, there is still much more cultural normalization of men “splaining” things to women than vice versa.
Anybody who thinks that women nowadays don’t still frequently get confronted with condescending assumptions about their presumed feminine ignorance on various “unfeminine” subjects is (a) a man and (b) not a very observant man.
The twitterer was right, the astronaut was wrong. Also, the astronaut is a comparative physiologist, not a physicist. And just being an astronaut doesn’t make you infallible–for instance, Apollo astronaut James Irwin was a moron.
Can mansplaining be attributed to the man hearing the woman complain and suggesting how to fix the woman’s problems, when what she really wants is someone to vent to?
Woman: I was late for my doctor’s appointment because I got stuck in traffic!
Man: I keep telling you to take an alternate route.
What he should have said: Oh, I’m so sorry. I bet it stressed you out.
A lot of people consider complaining about something without wanting a resolution “whining”
I think that is something totally different.
Wow, I hope those people manage to avoid seeing what goes on here in the BBQ Pit. Pretty much wall-to-wall complaints without wanting a resolution! And many of them initiated by men, no less!
(Hmm, but perhaps I’m overlooking the view that when men complain about something without wanting a resolution, especially with swearing thrown in, that’s called “ranting” and is considered more acceptable than “whining”.)
Mansplaining is a thing, womansplaining is a thing, people throwing either accusation as an excuse to tell someone to STFU is a thing.
Seems like the desired resolution is usually some form of STFU isn’t it?
Yeah, welp, I figured manson1972 was talking about a feasible resolution. I suppose you could say that, for example, yelling “I got stuck in fucking traffic and I wish all those other cars would just get abducted by aliens!” counts as “wanting a resolution”, after a fashion.
That’s a little different then “I got stuck in traffic because I didn’t take that alternate route you mentioned”
Alien abduction seems more feasible 
I would properly quote this but, no, I have despite my best efforts at mashing buttons to get a quote cascade going on this site… it has never worked.
But I will ask: Don’t you think that a (female) astronaut knew what was going to happen to set up the experiment? I mean she had to know to have it set up safely, wouldn’t you think?
Sort if like I videoed or twittered a video of me dropping an egg on a sidewalk when it’s freaking hot out, or hot water into the air when it’s freaking cold out… or maybe in close to zero-gee (I’m not an astronaut) (so I have no clue the safety stuff you have to do to video to share vs ooops, “little Adam” Schitt*). You do voodoo… dooby do… Scooby Doo! Sorry, starting the holiday early because I can.
*Still disgusted by so many Trump things… just as bad as calling Warren Pocahontas.
This, but it can go even more specific. I read somewhere that the term originally arose to describe what happened on a specific occasion when the woman being mansplained to was actually the author of the definitive go-to book on the subject in question.
If the OP’s relative pontificates to everyone about various topics, is it really mansplaining? I’m assuming that the context is some sort of social media setting in which she and her male relative are not the only people in the room, as it were.
There are some supposed examples of mansplaining that don’t make sense to me, like the cartoon that shows a man and woman at an art gallery and the woman saying, “I said I wonder what it means. I didn’t ask you to explain what it means.”. To me the statement “I wonder what it means” is sort of an invitation for someone to tell you what it means, at least if you are actually visiting the museum with the other person. To be fair, the man in the cartoon looked “off” and it wasn’t entirely clear that he was there with the woman, or was just a stranger who overheard her and volunteered a mansplanation.
Now that we’re in the Christmas season, I’ve got this vision of the baby Jesus explaining to Mary about what it’s like to give birth.
Bolding mine, of course.
Yeah, but the point is, “spontaneous” means “not caused by external conditions.” But the water boiling was caused by an external condition: the drop in pressure. Twist it around the other way, raising temperature. Would it be right to take a pot of room-temperature water, heat it above 212 degrees on a stove, and say that the water is suddenly “spontaneously boiling”? Because it is exactly the same thing. The problem wasn’t the experiment, the problem was the word choice.
Well, actually, it was Flavor-Aid. You see…
You’re not wrong, but so what? She was writing a breezy tweet–“Look at me, I’m 63,000 feet up!”–not a peer reviewed paper or a physics textbook. What kind of officious prick feels the need to point out that her informal use of a word is technically incorrect? And to compare her to a young earth creationist is beyond ridiculous.
Where does the most annoying guy at the party get his water?
From a well, actually.
In an art gallery, though? ISTM that unless you’re the artist who created the artwork, you don’t really know “what it means” any more than the person who’s wondering about it does.
Wondering about the meaning of an artwork is not like, say, somebody in a hardware store saying “I wonder why all these nail size numbers have a ‘d’ in them” or some other factual issue that could be objectively and informatively explained.
In this cartoon, I think the joke is supposed to be that the man is just taking it for granted that his interpretation is the correct one and it will be enlightening for his companion to have him explain it to her: i.e., the classic “mansplaining” situation.