While most would say Clinton emerged the more composed and polished candidate in the United States presidential debate, it would appear Trump won at least one important battle.

More people were talking about him on Twitter.

Viewers expecting Trump to deliver a theatrical masterpiece were not disappointed. He contradicted himself, he used bizarre phrases (braggadocious is indeed a real word), and he seemed to lose his train of thought mid-sentence.

Those not enthused by the low blows, however, were appalled with Trump’s serious case of (the delightful portmanteau) mansplaining. One article complained that Trump dominated 62 percent of Twitter mentions. Shocking, right? The article argued this is just another manifestation of everyday sexism.

Was this a case of sexism, or simply Clinton failing to achieve foot-in-mouth equality? Either way, Trump hasn’t been the only mansplainer this week.

Though I generally try to avoid reading about anything Lizzie Marvelly says or does out of concern for my sanity, the Herald caught me by surprise.*  According to Marvelly, it turns out the ACT Party are mansplainers too!

ACT suggested it is time to abolish ‘demographic’ ministers, which includes the Minister for Women. ACT even compromised by suggesting a Minister of Gender, acknowledging that men are overrepresented in some concerning social statistics.  

I agree. Where there are poor social outcomes (for males or females), they should be dealt with by the associated ministry (health, social development, police, etc.).

ACT might have made the fatal mistake of commenting on a political issue that affects women, but Marvelly didn’t exactly point out why ACT was wrong.

Nowhere in her tirade did Marvelly point out what the Minister for Women could or should do. While she listed the many ways women are not equal, ACT probably wouldn’t deny there are areas where women lag in national statistics. ACT might disagree on whether there is a political solution.

So is mansplaining the term we now use for any time a man disagrees with a woman? Am I womansplaining by agreeing with a mansplainer?

Don’t get me wrong, I get sick of loud, rude, ignorant and condescending men too. I have also come across women with those same attributes.

But just as Clinton would not have gained from stooping to Trump’s level of (um) temperament, Marvelly does not gain much by playing the man, not the ball.

*If that sounds harsh, those are the words Marvelly uses to describe ACT.