Misandry at its worst

Sounds like someone doesn't have a sense of humor! I just laugh constantly when I turn on any sitcom to see a hot woman bitch to her idiot husband about how much of an idiot he is. Best of all, I enjoy a good quality commerical involving a woman hitting, insulting, rolling her eyes, or racking her husband who didn't put the dishes in the dishwasher, only to look at the camera and say "oh...men".

(/sarcasm)

Grow up, bitch. It's simply the tables reversed for a small website selling t-shirts. You have all of the media, after all. Sure it's not funny, but neither is what I have to look at every time I turn on the TV.

So one guy puts out a shirt that is in obvious bad taste, and is then vilified, eh?

Well, pardon my lack of sympathy, but products like this (manufactured by David and Goliath) make that rather difficult:

"BOYS ARE SMELLY", "BOYS ARE STUPID","MEN ARE PIGS"

"THAT'S QUEEN BITCH TO YOU", "WHITE TRASH", "CHICKS RULE", "HIGH LOSER" with a picture of a smiling girl making the statement, "YOU SAY I'M A BITCH", "MAGICALLY DELICIOUS" written on the front area of the crotch of the underwear (panties)

"KISS ME" with an inappropriate set of lips and/or lipstick on the front crotch area of the underwear (panties)

"HERE BOYS" with a picture of a dog bone

"IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" ( 2 different models)

"BOYS LIE, POKE THEM IN THE EYE"

"BOYS ARE GOOBERS, DROP ANVILS ON THEIR HEADS"

"LOBOTOMY; HOW TO TRAIN BOYS'

"BOYS ARE STUPID: THROW KNIVES AT THEM"

"If Boys are So Tough, Why are They So Afraid of Knives (this with a picture of a boy running away with knives in the air)"

"Tape Can Be Fun, a T-shirt with a boy's mouth covered in tape.

One of the T-shirts is actually featured in the February issue of YM magazine this year.

Found this list at: http://www.canadiancrc.com/Hatred.htm

Any google search using "Anti-male t-shirts" will get a whole lotta hits.

"All in good fun"? My aching bung-hole.

The MP for Etobicoke Centre, a Liberal backbencher, tried again last week to get a private member's bill passed that would add girls and women to the Criminal Code's law on public incitement of hatred

This person isn't interested in protecting people from hate based on gender. Just "girls and women".

Thus proving once and for all that men are not considered human beings in Canada.

I don't know if this would survive a challenge in the Supreme Court - given that it's run by an arch-feminist - even though it's a clear example of discriminatory treatment under the law.

I suggest that we take up a collection to buy one of each of these disgusting, filthy examples of misandry and send them to the manhating pig that wrote that column.

Nah, it would be a waste of time - she'd just find some man to blame.

Nah, it would be a waste of time - she'd just find some man to blame.

Also she probably has all of these shirts already.

Hello all,

I sent an email to the writer this morning complete with many studies and facts and statistics and she has just now responded:

Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I agree with just about everything you say, in that, like you, I deplore violence in whatever context it is found.

I think I failed to make myself clear with that line you object to. I didn't mean to imply that men suffer no violence, or that women are not often guilty of assaults in domestic abuse cases. What I did want to say was that very few men, statististically speaking, suffer abuse for the simple reason that they are men. Women, on the other hand, have been natural and automatic victims for a long time, a situation fed by the misogyny we take for granted in our culture.

(Incidentally, I find ads like the one you mention completely objectionable -- but I don't believe it suggests any deep-rooted man-hating. It just shows bad taste and poor judgement.)

I do not mean to deny or minimize what men suffer. But I believe the roots are different, and it was the misogynistic roots I was discussing.

It's only racism when a white person does it.

It's only gender-based hate when a man does it.

It's only hate based on sexual orientation when straight people do it.

The hatred of any group in the "majority", even if they're actually a minority (i.e. men) is perfectly acceptable.

What do feminists call "hate" when they engage in it? Love?

That's just how the ultra-political crowd does things. The far left hates according to politically correct rules, the far right hates according to politically incorrect rules. Same shit, different pile. The end result of unbridled hate is always the same. See 20th century Rwanda or Germany for details.

These politically-motivated haters have this little hole, this little blank spot where their humanity is supposed to go. They compensate for their raging hatred of everyone and everything they're allowed to hate by NOT hating a few chosen groups. They're still deeply hateful people.

Sadly hate doesn't ever improve anything. It doesn't ever fix anything. It can only lead to more hate. The only solution is not to hate at all.

It's obvious to any rational man in the western world that society dislikes, disrespects and hates us.

What are we supposed to do, love women for hating us? Christ or Gandhi would say yes, but the simple fact is that most of us aren't Christ or Gandhi. What do women who write this sort of misandry really expect in return? The more misandry increases, the more misogyny will increase, and this columnist has accomplished nothing except fanning the flames.

Ever notice how male-positive articles generally refrain from casting men as victims, or do so only when statistics indicate that they are being victimized? Male-positive press is generally NOT hateful towards women.

"Female positive" press is ALWAYS misandric. There is only one cause of all of women's troubles - men. Under no circumstances are female readers EVER expected to feel any responsibility for their own problems, because everything is men's fault.

Still, it was good of the author of this hate piece to respond (even if she is lying through her teeth and is completely delusional). What you got back was the standard cognitive dissonance that feminists love so much - "I didn't say what I just said" and "bad things happen to men because they deserve them or because it's natural, bad things happen to women because men are pigs".

Somebody take away this woman's pen. She's part of the problem that BOTH men and women face, and she's making it worse for everyone.

I'm glad Crab wrote that female commentator at the Ottawa Citizen. I've been thinking about how to respond.

The writer of that misandric opinion piece says she doesn't mean to minimiize what men suffer, but that's exactly what she and her like-minded colleagues do. They minimize the extent to which males are physically assaulted by their female partners and the seriousness of emotional and physical abuse suffered by males. They ignore the research showing how prevalent female-perpetrated partner violence is (including in lesbian relationships) and they rationalize society's refusal to provide services and shelter for male victims and their children. I'm sure she is also oblivious to the criminal justice system's discrimination against male perpetrators and victims of DV in Canada and the US.

This woman's ignorance and lack of awareness of the whole picture surrounding domestic violence are quite apparent. She is very myopic and sexist.

In the response letter, it sounds to me like she is just spewing forth more false hypotheses, victimology and the ideological feminist viewpoint. It sounds to me like she is even further "genderizing" domestic violence, if that's possible, with her "roots are different" theory. She's the same kind of nut, who believes that rape is a "crime of power" that men have over women (the politicization of rape).

Also one of the phrases she uses is double-speak: "there is no widespread gender-specific phenomenon of violence against [men]". It sounds like she means, "women don't hit men as often as men hit women"; but she avoids coming out and stating it that way, because she knows the DV stats are highly debatable - so she makes an indirect statement, which cannot be debated, since it is without substance.