But I know that confusion often exists, which is why I have become careful to clarify. If I’m writing a comment about man-hating lesbian feminists for example, I actually write “man-hating lesbian feminists” – expecting that there isn’t a single reasonable person on earth who thinks that all women everywhere are man-hating lesbian feminists, and will therefore understand that I’m not being misogynistic.

Such rules apply when discussing influential organizations like N.O.W., making the distinction between the goals of that group and feminists such as Wendy McElroy who are interested in equality.

And the Judge’s excuse? I suppose she filled out the forms correctly.

It is well past time that Judges were held to account.

It’s tempting to chalk the whole thing up to a few infiltrators, women not serious about women’s rights who attach themselves to the movement because they feel safer man-bashing, than in, say, a Harry Potter Livejournal. While dedicated misandrists/armchair feminists likely account for some of the total misandry, their presence begs some important questions.

Why are these individuals made to feel comfortable and supported while they throw down female supremacy onto their comment window in time with their spittle? Why does everyone bullet-dive to the defense of the girl, even when she herself admits to unashamed misandry? There is a sense that admitting misandry exists undermines the legitimate claims of women who the system has wronged (the parallel to this, I believe, is the main thrust of MRAs).

Hows that taste? Pretty nasty eh?

Exactly.

TMOTS