Misogyny, I tell you!

Edit: Happy New Year, everyone!
I had this post ready well before Christmas, but decided it was way too dark for the spirit of 'yuletide' which officially ended yesterday with the celebration of 'Epiphany'.
So now I feel comfortable discussing this rather unpleasant topic.




A long time ago, I wondered why it never says anywhere in the The Good Book , "Thou shalt not hate".
Now, I am no bible scholar. I don't actually know if it doesn't say "Thou shalt not hate", but I am pretty sure those exact words are not stated anywhere in the Bible.
But what I do know, is that we are invited not to hate, in many instances in the Bible.
From the Fifth Commandment on, we are an invited not to hate.


5. Honor your father and your mother (don't hate on your parents).
6.You shall not murder (don't hate on your fellow man).
7.You shall not commit adultery (don't hate on your spouse).
8.You shall not steal (don't hate on your fellow man).
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (don't hate on your neighbour).
10.You shall not covet (don't hate on your neighbour).


And the first 4 commandments?
All about 'don't hate God'.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me, for I am a jealous God (don't hate on Me)
2. You shall not make idols (don't hate on Me).
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain (don't hate on Me).
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (don't hate on My special day).

:-)
In other words, you better not de-friend Him on Facebook. Or else!


And the greatest commandment of all?
"Love thy neighour as yourself".
Read: don't hate on your neighbour=don't hate on yourself.


With the above in mind, I have come to the conclusion that any hate is all about a degree of self-hate.
Yes, there are indeed people who truly hate themselves, with all the gravity that this serious affliction comes with.
But they are rare.


I hereby postulate that any word that begins with 'mis-' is actually a rarity, and includes a measure of self-hate, or at least an absence of self-love.


Nothing below can be proved. But with my own pitiful level of reasoning (as much as I can muster anyway!), I believe this makes sense.


Misogyny is rare (and certainly it is not as prevalent that feminists would have us believe).
And while I am about it, I shall touch on why I think it is in the interests of certain people (cough, cough, feminists) to give women the impression that misogyny is rampant in our culture, and worse, that it is on the rise. Other than to feed the 'victim culture' troll, that is.


My first task in this post is to be clear what I mean by 'misogyny'.


As I hope will become clearer and clearer, I do not use the common definition of 'hatred of women' because I think it is a deeper matter than that.


For me, misogyny is really about an absence of love, or hate, of the feminine.


This is crucially important, and is the clue as to why 1) Misogyny is rare, and 2) it makes perfect sense to me as to why this agenda has to be pushed in order to annihilate male-female relations.
So, throughout this post, even when I say 'woman' or 'women', I still mean the feminine.
(Female logic for you! :-)








1. To hate women, (which is what true misogynists do) you have to hate women. So, Man X who hates a particular woman Y, is not a misogynist. It is the plurality of it that counts.


So I disagree that, for example, men who have 'complaints' about particular women in their lives are necessarily misogynistic. Sure, they have the potential to become misogynistic, but that's a story of 'further down the road'.




2. Consider the following two scenarios:


a. The good-looking and rich young man looked on as the lovebirds shared a smooch in the open-top sportscar by the beach. He felt it again, this annoying feat of Nature that always reminded him that he was a failure. This physiological reaction beyond his control that always ensured that his yearning for feminine comforts will never be sated unless he literally takes things into his own hands. He thought once again, and surely, this would be the last time: 'what is it that that guy has and I don't? Why am I a virgin and he is clearly not?'


The next day he drove around town shooting anyone who crossed his path. Then he shot himself in the head.


b. A man in his 40s looked around him. Material things abound, he thought. He looked at his bank statement. Not bad at all. He could feed a family of six on what he earned, no problem. He stood up and went to the mirror, shirt off. A tall,  toned physique looked back at him. He shook his head. What had he done wrong in his life? Or more to the point, 'what is it with these stupid b*tches that none of them would take up the incredibly good deal that he had to offer?'


The next day he walked into a female-only gym and fatally wounded as many women as he could. Then he fatally wounded himself.


The life-stories of both of these men were plastered all over the press after they committed their heinous acts of hate. Both of these men demonstrated a high level of self-hate, yes. They lacked a basic level of self-love required to stay alive, sure.
But, I ask you: were they misogynists?
I say no.


But they killed women! (And men, in the case of the former).


I take you on a little diversion...


There are many things that make feminism deplorable to me. And for this reason, it annoys me no end when I find myself agreeing with things feminists say, even if for different reasons from them.


For instance, I am in favour of education for women, and yes, even college education (but for entirely different reasons from why feminists want the same thing).
I agree entirely with feminists that rape is worse than death (but for entirely different reasons from why feminists say this).
In this vein, (and now my Catholic head comes up for air, lol), I have also always believed that divorce is also worse than death (hmm, strangley enough, I am yet to lock horns with a feminist on this issue - interesting!).


It wasn't until I saw the following video (the first 15 minutes or so) that I was able to see why my initial hunch was the right one.
This pastor goes into the etymology of the word 'divorce' in military terms. This man is after my own heart! for it is surely no secret that etymology is a guilty pleasure of mine :-).
May he rest in peace. He died (along with his dear wife of thirty years) in a helicopter crash a couple of months ago.

The point I am trying so hard to make is that in the context of 'hate', there are things much much worse than death. No innocent bystander should lose their life because Mr. X can't get laid, of course, don't get me wrong.


The reason the above two men are not misogynists are two-fold. And both of these points are based around 'knowledge'.


To be a misogynist, one must know women. It is for this reason that I think a virginal man cannot be a misogynist. It is not enough to know a woman 'from a distance'. The men who can say for sure that they know women are those men who have spent a lot of time in close proximity with women. These men are usually not virgins :-)
The Don Juans and Casanovas of this world are much more capable of truly hurting women than the average 'beta' man on the street. And these men (and frankly the rest of us come to think of it) know that living life when you would rather be dead is worse than dying. That our collective fear of death is negligible compared with our collective fear of living a living death. That for years, victims of heinous crimes have petitioned against the death penalty for a reason.
Death (depending on the context, of course) is not the 'bad guy' it is billed to be. This is precisely why the two men above had to end their lives. Dying is easier when you have a pain that won't go away. Inflicting death on the objects of their displeasure was an opportunistic by-product that they must have known would not eliminate their own feelings of torment. Death, to them, was a way out for themselves. Death could not have been a suitable 'punishment' for someone innocent who doesn't even know the cause for which they lose their life.
People who die in this way, at the hands of others, so innocently, actually die in a state of grace, in the 'Catholic' sense. This means, they die blessed. It is said that whatever sins they may stand judgment for, are erased, such that their murderer takes on these sins.
(This is what I have heard in this context - if someone in the know on such doctrine wants to elaborate on this, they are very welcome to do so).
So, these men, although tragically prematurely ended the lives of others, in the grand scheme of things, if what I heard is correct, have done them (personally) an eternal favour rather than 'punish' them in any way. In this way, they both resemble petulant children (I will do 'X' even though I know that 'X' won't make me feel better, won't solve my problem or make things whole again, but I will do 'X' because I can't or won't find a better solution').


A true misogynist wants his victim alive. So these two unfortunate men were not misogynists. They were gravely misguided in their thinking. As in fatally misguided. Their crime was not misogyny because they were not in a position to know women. And in fact, both sought this, with no success. That was the problem. One could say that they died of ignorance. Literally.


Am I saying that it follows that a knowledge of women (which in effect is really what 'Game' is) could (at least in theory) increase the chances of a man becoming truly misogynistic?


But yes, of course!


But I have two thoughts on this:
i. Having 'plurality' and 'knowledge' does not a sandwich make, or something to that effect.
There is a third element necessary to create a misogynist.


ii. It is a risk we have to take. Everyone is endowed with free will, courtesy of God. It is up to us what we do with our 'knowledge'. It is for this reason that I a still an advocate of Game even though I know what the (unintended or undesirable) consequences could be. (I see you, Metak, stop rolling your eyes :-)


Before I embark on the final element required for misogyny, I hope it is already all-too-clear that the best candidate for misogyny therefore is....women!


I know you know this, but as it is part of the topic at hand, I shall mention it nonetheless. The average woman is more capable of being a misogynist than the average man.
This is not to say of course that she will. Element number three needs to be in place before she will.


As men relate well to one another's experiences, and therefore to one another, so women relate to one another. As I alluded to 'M' here, two women (even strangers) can immediately 'see into each other's souls'. It's not that difficult. It's a human thing. In particular, every woman can see the dark side of another woman very well.
This, by the way is why I assert that 'Spacetraveller's law' must be true:
In general, men don't listen to what a woman has to say.
*Shrug*. There are sound reasons for this. Admittedly...
But there is one huge exception: if you, as a man, bring home a woman and your mother/sister/female cousin/ aunt/ any woman who has your best interests at heart says to you: 'I have a bad feeling about this one...' she is almost certainly right. She is not nearly so accurate if she is saying 'Ah, this one is a good one, marry her immediately!' Here, the chances of her being right are exactly the same as if left to chance alone - around 50-50.
But if this woman who cares about you says, 'watch out, there is something about this one I can't put my finger on, but things ain't right with her'... this is the best warning you will ever get. This is one occasion your ears (and eyes) must be wide open.
Women know each other well, especially each other's dark side.


And every woman knows what's good for her fellow woman. Or at least, should know.
So what is good for a woman?
The preacher above, in one of his videos describes this beautifully. He made my heart sing :-).


He said that women are 'incubators' by nature.
Huh? Isn't that what they put premature babies in for a few weeks until they can breathe unaided?
:-)


Absolutely. A device that gives life/nourishes/nurtures/develops another.
Beautiful description of the essence of femininity, if you ask me...


The preacher went on to give examples.
"You give her ingredients, she gives you back a meal".
"You give her a house, she gives you back a home".
You give her your seed, she gives you back a baby".
:-)


Most women want to have a chance to be incubators, with all of the above functions, in a safe and secure environment, which a man provides.
There are several ways she can be deflected from this end-point.
A true misogynist will make sure that as many women as possible are deflected from the end-point that God intended for them.
A true female misogynist was likely a bad 'incubator' herself. And now she wants younger women to be the same.
Bad incubators got a house - they trashed it literally and metaphorically.
Instead of a (life-giving) meal, they will feed you poison. (Another small digression here, but I kid you not when I say that I once watched a documentary about divorced people wreaking 'cold revenge' havoc on their ex-souses. Some were somewhat funny, like the woman who cut off the sleeves off her ex-husband's exclusive collection of high-end suits, and this man.
But the one that left me cold was the woman who invited her ex-husband to a dinner-party for one, and served him one of her special pies, which he had apparently loved throughout their fairly long marriage. Except on this occasion, it was full of dog excrement. The man ate it all and thanked his ex-wife profusely for what he called 'a lovely trip down memory lane'.
No.
If you cannot give food to someone you have come to hate so much, don't offer them food.
Food is supposed to be life-giving.
The whole point about an incubator is that it helps you to 'get back on your feet'. It is life-giving.




 'Knowledge' is important here.
This is why I think young, enthusiastically vigorous feminists are so much less harmless than their older counterparts.
Young Germaine Greer wannabe, harmless troublemaker.
Old Germaine Greer has-been, dangerous woman.


Why?
Because the young one doesn't yet know the ill-effects of feminism. She bought the by-line and is mindlessly following suit.
By the time she is old and finds out that all her campaigning has led to nothing more than a regretable situation for herself personally, and for society at large, if she continues to peddle what she is now regretting, she is a true misogynist.
There are good women out there who warn others:
"I had an abortion and I live to regret it every day. Don't do what I did."
"I divorced my (good) husband for frivolous reasons, and now I see the error of my ways."
"I was very promiscuous as a young woman, and now I feel shame every time I look at the man I married (who 'waited')."
I have actually read stories like these. No joke.


These women are good souls, and are doing a good thing. Long may they continue.


Element three is, in addition to having plurality and knowledge under one's belt, one also has the wilful intent to hurt.


So, in this sense, even if old Germaine Greer does not intend to cause harm by spreading harmful rubbish around, even she is not a misogynist.


Seasoned woman-haters know what they are doing. And they can be extremely effective at what they do. They are to be feared.


And at the same time they are to be pitied.


Because they show an appalling level of self-hate.
Remember that I insist that misogyny really means 'hatred of 'the feminine'?


In each of us, there is masculine and feminine, the 'anima' or 'energy' or 'ying and yang'. Normal women have much more of the feminine than the masculine. Normal men have much more of the masculine than the feminine.


True misogynists hate everything that reminds them of 'the feminine', including the part of themselves that they recognise as 'the feminine'.
I hereby postulate (by this logic) that a true misogynist would not be able to abide phenomena that we all recognise as 'feminine' for sustained periods of time, if at all.
For instance, Nature is widely believed to have feminine qualities (and not just because Nature tends to be cyclical, eg. in the sense of The Seasons, lol), hence 'Mother Nature'.
For this reason, everything about these people must be 'artificial'. They are heavily invested in 'Science and Technology' and have an unreasonable and unhealthy desire to overrule Nature at all cost.
True misogynists, I postulate, do not like other men, for to destroy women is to destroy what other men might find pleasurable/useful/enjoyable/likeable - potentially.
(Yes, I know that this last statement is laughable without the last key word - potentially).




Thankfully, (I believe) that the numbers of these people are low, and will remain low because their lives are literally not compatible with life.




Misandry? That's another post, but I feel unqualified to discuss it somehow. But I will ponder that subject and post my thoughts on it if there is enough interest.

She makes my heart sing

Ah, don't you just love consumerism :-)
With Christmas coming up, this beast rears its ugly head once again :-)

From the first day I saw the following advert, an unfortunate association occurred...

Now I cannot hear this musical…

or a documentary like this...

without thinking about...chocolate!


Ticked off as I am that I have encumbered myself with a Pavlovian response that I cannot seem to stave off other than to not book an African safari anytime soon, it begs the question: just how do they do it? (The 'programming', I mean).
Or is this something that one does to oneself, aided and abetted by the materialistic society we live in?
How does one wean oneself off from such unwholesome 'conditioning' whilst simultaneously living in the West?

Weird associations aside, the silver lining is that it is from this same advert that I acquired a favourite catchphrase of mine.
Whenever something pleases me immensely, I express this with the phrase 'it makes my heart sing'.


I found a reason for my heart to sing recently.
A reason to have hope in the current SMP.


All is not lost.
At least not yet.

I have mentioned before that I do find gems in unusual places. This is no exception.

I came across a new blog recently. It is not the blog per se which interests me (although it is interesting for sure!) but a particular video I saw on that blog.

The blog is called 'Goldmund Unleashed', and is run by an American man who practises Game - a lot.
Goldmund is a man who is clearly confident in himself and is successful in the SMP.

I am happy for Goldmund, of course.

But it is not Goldmund I am interested in, for this post. In his latest post, he interviews a woman who used to be his room-mate. He and this woman clearly have a beautiful friendship and he describes her as 'family' in the post.
The warmth between them does come across very well in the interview (which spans two short videos - here).

Why would this woman 'make my heart sing'?

Several reasons:

1) She is clearly a very smart woman. By this, I mean that she is a sensible woman. This woman is the very embodiment of what every young woman should be, in my humble opinion. She thinks deeply, and has a very clear insight into a lot of issues which matter. Frighteningly for Goldmund (and I think this is - paradoxically - one of the reasons he may be fond of her), she has a great deal of insight into him.


2) She is a pleasant woman. Sweet, but not soppily so. It occurs to me now watching the video how rare this feature is becoming, so it really warms the cockles of my heart whe I see this in action.
Even though she is (unsurprisingly!) 'disgusted' with his private life, she is still pleasant about it, because a) she recognises that it is his life and not hers, and he is free to live his life as he so chooses, and b) I think she also accept that men are wired differently, so she refuses to judge him even though his lifestyle is not what she would choose for herself. I really like this 'live and let live' attitude she adopts towards him. She is not a prude, but that does not mean that she 'high-fives' him about his lifestyle, falsely. She is refreshingly honest, but within boundaries that respect his autonomy for his own life. I like that very much, and I can see that he respects her for it.


3) I already touched on this. But it should be repeated.
Whilst she is 'nice' she is also 'not too nice'.


'Niceness' is a bit of a two-edged sword, for both men and women. It is a good thing, until it is not. I think you all know what I mean. This woman is nice, which is why Goldmund likes her. But she is (brutally) honest as well. She is not a supplicating, 'pleaser'. Very important quality in a woman.


One might argue that she does not need to be nice to Goldmund, because she is not romantically linked to Goldmund.
Fair point.
But traits are traits. In the end, we treat everyone the same whether or not we are trying to impress them, because old habits die hard, as they say. It is therefore almost certain that she is just as honest with her boyfriend (or husband?) as she is being with Goldmund here.


4) Her mannerisms are very feminine.  She is a naturally pretty woman (if she is wearing make-up, it is light and not 'heavy' in a way that I see all too commonly) and her 'inner beauty' shines through to the outside. She smiles a lot, and she engages well with Goldmund to whom she is speaking. She may not be necessarily a 'people person' (is this shorthand for 'extrovert?) but she has this je ne sais quoi quality which makes people feel welcome in her presence. I know that introverts seek this quality in anyone they approach, and extroverts thrive on it :-)
She could talk to anyone, this woman. I wonder if she is a teacher? Teachers often has this quality in abundance...


5) I like how this woman is free of what I have now come  to recognise as 'low-level misandry'. Bellita and I discuss this 'man-hate' a lot, particularly in this post.
This woman cares about Goldmund in a way that is unusual for non-siblings/non-romantically-involved. This point is perhaps related to point 2 above, but only marginally, I think. She is genuinely happy for him that he seems to have 'found himself' in the time-period that she has known him.
This is gold - for Goldmund (excuse the pun, lol).
So many women are poisoned with 'man-hate' from the crib onwards that this genuine type of friendship - let alone love - is really not possible between the sexes anymore. Tragic.


So Goldmund's ex-room-mate makes my heart sing for her genuine love for another human being, who happens to be male.
This reminds me of a phrase in italian. 'Ti voglio bene' which literally means 'I wish you well' is one way to say 'I love you'. Isn't that beautiful? This takes me back to a previous post on this blog, about love, in particular the 'caritas' kind. Love, or caritas, requires a certain generosity of spirit, which I can see this woman possesses in abundance.
By implication, I can bet with certainty that she has a genuine love for women too. The clue for this, I pick up when she mentions that she feels sorry for one of the women Goldmund had a fling with (?one night stand?).


And here I take a short diversion and vent my frustration at those people (aherm, looking squarely at feminists, cough cough) who fling the word 'misogyny' about like a frisbee.


Misogyny is a word that has come to mean anything and everything these days.
But what it is not, is denying women their 'empowerment'.
It is not taking away their 'freedom'.
It is most certainly not thwarting their desire for 'adventure'.


If all of the above desires leads to her (self-) destruction, and someone has enough love for a woman to divert her from said path to doom, let us not call this 'pulled back from the brink manoeuvre' - misogyny.


There is such a thing as misogyny. Oh yes. But it is presented as a 'friend' of womanhood, until it becomes all too clear it is not.
I do not want to detract too much from the positive tone of this post, but I have definite ideas about what misogyny is and isn't.
Perhaps a post for another day?


Our mystery woman, in feeling sorry for women who don't know what's in their own best interests, is showing compassion. That is philogyny right there.


6) She is clearly not American. There is a hint of 'foreign' in her diction. The relevance of this point is that I hear so many men lament the 'fall from Grace' of the American woman. This is a shame, of course. And a double-shame for me because I would love nothing better than to debunk this ubiquitous observation. But alas, not with this example.
So my search continues...
:-)
Is this woman a 'unicorn' of sorts?


I would argue...not.
I think there are many women like this who are normal, feminine women. But they live normal, quiet lives. They are not all in a video on a blog. They are not 'out there', so it seems like they do not exist.


How lovely when they are recognised for who they are by friends (like Goldmund), spouses, family members.


I think we should 'name and praise' these exemplary women when we see them (as in, opposite to 'naming and shaming' the bad ones, lol) for 2 important reasons:
1) That these lovely ladies are encouraged to continue their exemplary behaviour for which they are being commended.
2) That other ladies take note (we ladies are 'herd' creatures, lol).
3) That observers are reminded that these women still exist. Keeps hope alive, you see.
:-)


Whoever this lovely lady is, can I just say to you - well done for your wonderful demeanour. Props to you, more grease to your elbow and long may you continue!

Misandry? Not half!

When Danny asked me to write a post on 'misandry in the media', I said to him 'you don't half give a girl a herculean task, do you, mate!'

I tbelieved it would be very difficult.
Turns out I was right.
But not for the usual reasons.



There are millions of examples of what I have now come to accept as 'misandry' everywhere around me. You all and I know the score.
It is really quite astonishing that it has come to this.


Life in general has taken on this seemingly 'female-friendly' allure.
Unfortunately, it is actually far from female-friendly. It is just pseudo-female-friendly. But some of us apparently don't know the difference...


We all (um, the Royal 'we' that is!) boarded this shiny new train so eagerly, the old ladies were being elbowed out the way.
But now that the train is at its final destination, we've turned all shy about getting out and going sightseeing in the pretty new city...

How did it come to this?



Anyhow, Danny himself knows more than me about misandry.
As do you all.
It won't be even remotely interesting for me to rehash all the examples we all know of.
TV, schools, films from Hollywood (but strangely not Bollywood or Nollywood), even the workplace and certainly the SMP.
Misandry everywhere if we open our eyes and see.


This article helps me make my point though.
The author of the article is however not the one who is displaying misandry.
She is merely reporting what she sees.
And she has clearly seen a lot.
And it sounds like she has had enough of it all...

And I shall behave myself and not go off on one regarding poor little William...



And I won't even allow myself to be distracted by a singer's use of the term 'idiot blokes' when referring to men...



I shall save my coolheadedness for a woman I have been thinking about for quite a while now.
Ever since she entered into my conscious zone a few months ago.


For a long, long time I couldn't really work out why I was always a little more than perturbed by the following video.
Then I realised it wasn't actually Sandra Fluke herself who bothers me. It was all that she represents that freaks me out.
Although I use her as an illustration, this post is not really about Sandra Fluke. It is the rise of womanhood of this shade (one of fifty, I presume) that is the problem.

This speech is dripping with covert misandry.

And the really clever part is that it is disguised as an attempt to overcome misogyny.
If it weren't so manipulative, (and therefore destructive to any woman who subscribes to it), it would be cool.

Ms. Fluke first came to prominence when she demanded that contraceptive costs be covered by health insurance providers.
Not a negligible coincidence that she underwent 'feminist, gender and sexuality studies'.


Unfortunately for us all, she emerged smelling of roses after Rush Limbaugh used some choice words to describe her... erm... social life.
He fanned the flame was to become the forest fire.

He should not have been so imprudent as to go off on one like he did, that's for sure.
Especially as he is not an angel either.

But now Ms. Fluke's war against the 'big bad boys who won't give her free Pills' has gone global.
And a sympathetic president is being used as a weapon in her little war.
How fortuitous that President Obama happens to be a father of daughters! Sandra Fluke is milking this little fact for all it's worth. And the president finds himself...trapped by his own goodwill.


I don't think this is about free contraceptives...at least not anymore.

It is now about...
How men are oppressing women.
How women's bodies are no longer their own.
How women are not allowed to speak up about injustices done to them.
How it is so unfair that the prevention of pregnancy, which should be a concern for women, is in the hands of men.
How women are being taken back in time, like a hundred years, back to grandma's days.
How our foremothers are being made to turn in their graves as their daughters are being made to fight the same old battles they had fought a 100+ years ago.

How...

This is a battle with Rush Limbaugh.
It is an emotional tirade against a man who was a little bit too harsh in his critique of her.
He was the little light breeze that flicked on her switch of misandry which had been building up for years thanks to her choice of academic pursuits, without the backup of natural or even learned restraint against the tornado of feminism.

Sandra Fluke is a normal woman. Her actions are well within the Gaussian distribution.
But she hasn't connected the dots yet.

No woman likes to be called a word rhyming with 'rut'.
Even those who ask for free contraceptives in public.

And when she is, in such a public manner, the dam falls apart and the backlash is relentless.
This train won't stop until it crashes into Limbaughville. Literally.


It might seem like it didn't take much for Sandra Fluke to unveil her disdain for men and the resentment she feels at not being allowed the 'feedom' and the 'liberation' (at least of the sexual variety) the latter are accorded in this life.

But it did.
The curious reality is that every woman wants to be respected in one very important way. Otherwise we don't really give two hoots about respect - that's a man's headache.

And yet, some women just don't know, or just don't care to garner that respect.
And when it is not forthcoming, the demands and the rants start.
And then the slowly boiling-over contempt and rage gushes forth.

What happens if a Sandra Fluke-a-like is an advertising executive?
You guessed right.
What happens if  a Sandra Fluke-a-like is a teacher in a school?
You guessed it.
A film director?
A lawyer?

Sandra Fluke is a lawyer.
And heaven help you if you meet her in a family court...


Sandra Fluke is not blameless in her obvious dislike of the perceived power of men over women, but what is apparent is that this did not develop in a vacuum.
The fertile soil was there in her case for sure.
And so was the catalyst in the form of overly critical men, at least in her eyes.

Somewhere along the line, someone should have applied the brakes.
The best person to do this would have been... Sandra Fluke.

But it is clear she won't.
And the nth wave feminism train continues its journey into miserable oblivion. It is well past Misandryville now...


The best solution, according to what I am hearing from men is that women drop the whole misandry thing first, before they would let up on the harsh critique.

The problem is, I am not even sure if women like Ms. Fluke would drop the misandry poison if all men were to be 'gentle' in a manner typical of...women.

Perhaps the 'return to femininity' would have to be executed with some of our sisters 'missing in action'.
Anyone whose torso is more than halfway in (head first) down the rabbit hole is perhaps not going to feature in the comeback campaign to normality.

There will always probably be a background level of misandry around, I guess, even if things do look up in the near future.
It will probably stay at the same level as 'background misogyny'...

How's that for 'equality'...

What it mean, this misogyny?

One of the beauties of living in a non-English-speaking country is that one hears a variety of accents when English is spoken.
Some of which are entertaining :-)

And in Switzerland, you get the full range. German, French and Italian are only the 'official' languages. There are also large communities of Spanish, Portuguese and Africans of different nationalities (mainly french-speaking, of course).

So the potential for self-amusement is immense.
Voilà another one of my guilty pleasures.

And of course, I give back what I take from the Swiss :-)
My french accent is apparently as hilarious to them as their English is to me.
My German makes small children cry. (At least I hope it's the accent and not anything else about me :-)
Don't go there with the Italian...

It's the perfect symbiotic existence.


I may poke fun at it, but I like it.
Nothing better than to hear English with an accent for which it was not designed :-)
So this post is dedicated to all the people who have ever said to me, 'what it mean, this ________?'




Bellita did a good job not so long ago delineating for us what she had gleaned from her own experiences of the definition and practice (conscious or otherwise) of Manhate.
This topic was so nicely dealt with, that, thanks to her, I am now absolutely clear on what this entails, and I will certainly recognise it easily when I see any facet of it.

So thanks again, dear Bell.

But alas, I am not done with the questions yet :-)
There are always two sides to every coin.

My thoughts having been directed to  the topic of 'Manhate', now veer uncontrollably towards the other elephant in the room.


Over the last few years, I have heard the word 'misogyny' a lot. Under all sorts of different contexts.
And let me add that until I hit The Manosphere, I had never heard the word 'misandry'.
This is the honest truth. Or Truth, as NC would say.


So there is clearly a mismatch in Blue Pill world.

But...a mismatch is not necessarily a bad thing.

I can be persuaded that in this context, it is a good thing.

But I would really need convincing.
I am willing to be open-minded on this one.
So open-minded that my usual request of 'explain it to me like I am a 6 year old' applies :-)



What is misogyny as applied to our current SMP?

At the basic level, a misogynist is a man who hates women.
But how does this 'hatred' manifest itself?


Is it a man who walks into a gym and selects out women to be killed?
Is it a man who beats his wife?
Is it a man who believes women are objects to be used and abused?
Is it a man who believes women are inferior beings?
Is it a man who thinks women are intrinsically evil, all of them?
Is it a man who wants a world where women are in the kitchen, pregnant and barefoot, never seen nor heard (as opposed to children who may be seen, but not heard)?
Is it a man who wants women to be feminine as he is masculine?
Is it...

I have heard all of these examples cited...almost verbatim.
These may be the extreme ones (specially chosen by me to make a point), but there are subtler versions of this.


Misogyny is a word used a great deal by feminists.
I have learned not to trust anything a feminist says.
Because there are lots of inconsistencies there that defeat their own argument.
Until I come up with a post on why the newer version of 'feminism' may be an 'ally' rather than 'foe', I remain sceptical (^^).

I believe I know when I encounter true misogyny.
But has the definition of 'misogyny' widened to include cases which would never have been considered 'misogyny' fifty years ago?



This topic fascinates me somewhat, because I know that The Manosphere is exactly the type of forum that would be first on the 'blacklist' of 'misogyny'.
And yet, I do not feel this way about most Manosphere sites.
Some are shocking, yes, especially when first encountered.
But it must be said, I have encountered surprising levels of philogyny amongst some Manosphere bloggers. And the fact that it is surprising to me is testament to the gravity of the problem at hand.

Why are these men labelled misogynists?
Is it because their message is brutal, aka undiluted, or is it really because they refuse to 'sugarcoat' the realities of the current SMP?
What they say, afterall, is what one's father or brother would say, should his opinion be sought.
But are (current) female ears so extra-sensitive to the words of males because males are disappearing from our midst on a logarithmic scale and we are not used to their no-nonsense and rather direct modus operandi anymore? Is this the problem?

Have women accidentally sensitised themselves to men, such that anything a man says or does is seen as an attack on the female??
Is this a manifestation of the female ego getting 'roided up?


Can a woman be misogynistic?
I ask this because we established that there are men who are clearly 'Manhaters'.


Is the accusation of 'Misogyny!' a new  strategy to quieten down the man who dares assert himself in the face of fem-centric pseudo-dominance?
Is the goal-post being ever so slightly shifted each day such that true misogyny is confounded with false misogyny to cloud the issue?
Are the ever-louder cries of 'Misogyny!' designed to cover up the ever-growing contempt of men (aka misandry) that is destroying society?
They do say that 'offense' is the best form of 'defence'...



What is clear is that the 'devil beneath' has changed its face over the years.
What is so often labelled 'misogyny' may be a smokescreen to prevent a much-needed message from being heard.
Yes, there are some things with The Manosphere which are not necessarily to the taste of some. Agreed.
And yes, there are some heinous examples of misogyny out there. Undeniably so.

But if a man's plea to a woman or women of 'Be feminine!' is equated to the actions of a serial rapist whose personal history includes a mother who repeatedly denied him food when he was aged 3 (and therefore has become a true misogynist), then something has gone wrong.



Clarification is not so much wanted as needed, much in the manner of a thirsty desert-wanderer seeking an oasis.

I have a good reason for this:
If a message is to be delivered, it needs to be heard. Not just listened to, heard.
If what men of The Manosphere say is to be heard, the label of 'misogyny' has to be uncoupled from them.
Otherwise, sensible young women (the target of this message) will simply not hear it.
Because they would not listen to it.
They would have been lost at 'hello'.


A normal self-respecting woman with a healthy dose of self-love, and none of that self-loathing that is often to be observed among a certain crowd will not tolerate misogyny.
And rightly so.
Same as men will not tolerate misandry in any shape or form.

So we need to be careful what we call misogyny.

What it mean, this misogyny?

Is it??

Yes, he committed an act consistent with misogyny... is there anyone who would argue with that?



He called a woman who wanted free Pills a word rhyming with 'rut'. Does this make him a misogynist?

This woman is probably from Afghanistan. I think she is truly a victim of misogyny...is there anyone who would argue with that?

Religious misogyny...does this exist? Why can't I agree with Mr. Obama on this issue? Is it because I sense he is attacking my religion? Is blind adherence to Catholicism blinding me to my own experience of 'misogyny'? Or is this what the feminists would have me believe?

Is denying a Western Woman the right to have an abortion the same as what the Afghan woman above is facing in her life?

Are both equally 'misogyny'?

There are facets of this topic which are very confusing and blurred. Precisely why I seek clarification...