You lying b*tches wouldn’t know misogyny if it bit you on your butt.

I swear I’m going to lose my mind at the stupidity of these Übermenschen.

“I don’t hate women, I just think that they are worthless lying whore cunt bitches. I also believe that rape doesn’t exist, because the worthless lying whore cunt bitches are making it up 100% of the time. But I swear I don’t hate women. I’m completely indifferent, which is why I can’t stop talking about how women are worthless lying whore cunt bitches.”

Yep. And I own all these guitars and related equipment because I’m indifferent to music. I have five bookshelves full of books because I hate reading. I eat because I’m not hungry.

Perhaps we need another word for these Reddit guys since misogyny is not correct.

Wyfhassery?

Also not misandry: a woman being able to choose who she fucks.

People usually language-police the term “misogyny” because misogynists are bad and they are not bad therefore the only things that count as misogyny are people screaming at the top of their lungs that they hate women, not any of the behaviours that the language-police officer exhibits. Which shows a huge lack of understanding of both language, and, you know, how humans interact.

Not misandry: Bad taste jokes about rape/abuse/etc. Logic. Counterarguments. Disagreements. Harsh language. Saying cunt. Saying bitch. Calling men names. Being pro-life. Calling every man who accuses a woman of rape a liar.

This is what Regender gave me. Those highlighted parts really do seem like misandry to me. (That’s not to say that I think that’s all the misogyny we could find in the original.)

Plus, did anyone ever claim that logic and counterarguments were misogyny? If so, where?

What makes my head spin the most is that they can on the one hand dismiss the mountains of misogyny in the world, and on the other spin misandry almost entirely out of thin air. I mean, I’ve seen genuine straight-up no question misandry… like a couple of dozen times in my lifetime, versus the literal near-daily misogyny that I see. And I don’t even get out much these days.

But I guess when you’re one of the manzly menz you can just make up reality to suit you. UGH.

Wow, I just went over to that thread, the whole section where he says women are dogs? Yeah, no hatred of women going on there at all (rolls eyes)

I mean, I’ve seen genuine straight-up no question misandry… like a couple of dozen times in my lifetime, versus the literal near-daily misogyny that I see. And I don’t even get out much these days.

Improbable Joe, agreed. And weirdly, most of the misandry I’ve encountered in my life has come from women who are NOT feminists, and would be horrified if you called them feminists. Yes, in my 35 years on this planet I’ve met one or two feminists who indulged in misandry, but significantly more women who are into a “traditional lifestyle” just flat out denigrate men. It’s bizarre.

…did anyone ever claim that logic and counterarguments were misogyny?

Near as I can tell, that’s an MRM meme that originated at Shrink4men. Basically Tara J. Palmatier took one word out of context from a legitimate DV checklist and ran with it.

I don’t always go out of my way to agree with reddit or other MRAs but in this case, they have a point. Why can’t men even if they are definitely NOT misogynists do any or all of the above actions, because they ( or men close to them) have been done bad by a woman–sometimes more than one–and they are expressing anger, frustration, or disgust at womens’ lies, cheating, exploitation of sex, backstabbing, or other sundry manipulation?

Men engage in such disreputable behavior too, on occasion, but when that happens, we never hear the end of it! Women, on the other hand, whether from misplaced chivalry, sympathy for the supposed ‘underdog’, or some other reasons, too often get what MRAs call a “p***ypass”, that is, a kind of suspension of judgement on their misconduct simply because the evildoer is a woman. manboobz is not the worst in doing this, but it does its share!

OT: You guys want to help me craft a response to this long, obnoxious defense of the Mississippi legislation? My thesis is that the legislation exists to be divisive and smear those who oppose it, as defended by this list of Hitler and Satan references related to the campaign. The response:

Alright, if you really want to discuss the ad hominem issue, let’s start by making sure I understand what you mean: I would define a “stick to beat people with” as ‘a means to a [mostly unrelated] end’. In this case, you’re saying the people proposing this legislation are doing it not because they sincerely believe in saving lives, but to use the legislation as a means to another end (perhaps feeling self-righteously superior, or advancing some other mostly unrelated political goal, or taking away women’s rights because they have it in for feminists). It this a correct interpretation of your view?

If it is, then I would argue that most of the people behind the Mississippi amendment, and most of the people quoted on that blog post, with the possible exception of Randall Terry, do not see the legislation as their stick, but rather their end. They do seem willing to use other sticks (good/evil rhetoric, holocaust analogies, ad hominem defamation of abortionists, false historical assertions) to further their end, but looking at these quotes, and following the rabbit trail of links closer to the original sources, I think most of them really do have the goal of passing this type of legislation. They do, in general, seem to feel very strongly about the issue and feel that it is a matter of good and evil. They, at least, believe they are fighting for something good.

You may argue that they have motives that they do not themselves recognize – namely that they unconsciously hate pro-choice people or mothers who would choose abortion, if they compare such people to Satan or Hitler. But I do not think that is borne out in most of those quotes, either, with the possible exception of the Operation Rescue folks (Randall Terry and Troy Newman):
– In the original context [http://bound4life.com/blog/2011/11/08/church-must-look-inward-as-personhood-amendment-fails] , Susan Tyrell’s line about the “kingdom of Satan” does, in fact, seem to be talking about the kingdom of Satan referred to in the Bible passage she quotes immediately prior to that sentence. While she does talk about the Mississippi vote as a battle of light and darkness, her post is about disunity in the church, and does not, in my reading, equate “the kingdom of Satan” with any particular group of people, but with a general sense of the wrongness in the world (that she believes has won out, in this case).
– Phil Bryant was not using the issue to defeat his Democratic rival, as the Democratic candidate also supported the amendment. He did speak broadly about good/evil/Satan winning, but when confronted with a rape victim at his press conference, he said he couldn’t envision a judge ever prosecuting a rape victim for her abortion, which is illogical but compassionate, and does seem to indicate that his primary motivation is not beating up on women. [http://www.salon.com/2011/11/08/personhoods_mississippi_moment_of_truth/] (you have to click ‘continue reading’ to show the whole article).
– I haven’t watched the 180 movie referred to by the final quote, so I don’t know about that, but I do think there are reasonable parallels that can be drawn between abortion and the holocaust, and unreasonable parallels, as well.

So, on the whole, I don’t see much evidence for this legislation being a “stick to beat people with” in the minds of its supporters or most pro-lifers, but rather a goal in their (misguided or not) attempts to do what they believe is right. It may also be considered a stepping stone to a larger version of itself, say a federal constitutional amendment, but I don’t think that invalidates this amendment as a goal, either.