When I initially read Rebecca Solnit's original piece on the practice of mansplaining, one of the key distinctions that stood out to me was that of men who explain something to a woman BECAUSE they assume she's uneducated or uninformed based on her position as a woman relative to his as a man. It's the unsolicited aspect of it...where she didn't ask him to have something explained to her, and he does it in a presumptuous way in cases where his expertise on the specific subject matter happens to be equal to, or lesser than, hers.

My impression is that the "condescending" element of the definition became an add-on ("added on" by certain players from the peanut gallery) because so many men who mansplain to women indeed do exert that behavior with a condescending tone. Unfortunately, some women have taken to the practice of misappropriating a factual statement made by a male person as "mansplaining" SOLELY BASED ON "the tone" per se -- **rather than** due to the factors of his commentary being unsolicited and/or less informed (than hers).

By this same metric, "womansplaining" would certainly exist, as well. Certain people, however, are attributing the term of "(wo)mansplaining" primarily to tone (or how it makes them feel), in and of itself, as opposed to the inclusion of expertise level and/or presence of solicitation (which is clearly the point Solnit was making, when one goes back and reads her original article).