Two days ago Dina Rickman, a feminist journalist, was with me on a discussion panel on London Live TV, covering the topic of ‘everyday sexism’. Also with us was Daisy Buchanan, a pleasant woman despite being a Guardian journalist.
I challenged the three women (including the presenter, Claudia-Liza Armah) to state even ONE area in which British women and girls are disadvantaged by the state’s actions and inactions, given that men and boys are assaulted in at least 20. Ms Rickman came up with ‘the gender pay gap’. Seriously, she did. Inspired by this public display of utter idiocy, a supporter created the latest meme of the week.
Later in the discussion Ms Rickman scraped the bottom of her very shallow intellectual barrel, and asked me:
I don’t know if you know any women?
At a guess I’d say insinuations or allegations of misogyny have been made in most of my BBC interviews, and male presenters are no better than female presenters in this regard. This morning I was interviewed about positive discrimination on BBC Radio London by Jeni Barnett, standing in for Vanessa Feltz. The interview should be on our YouTube channel in the next day or two. In the final minute of a 16-minute-long interview during which I’d presented numerous rational arguments against positive discrimination, and explained a few of the many ways in which men and boys have long been disadvantaged in Britain, Ms Barnett trotted out this gem:
Do you like women, Mike?
Insinuations of misogyny invariably come in the wake of my presentation of reasoned arguments, and I’m pleased with how I responded to the question today.
Feminist commentators on Ally Fogg’s blog pieces invariably play the misogyny card, and I’ve ceased wasting my time responding to them. There are only so many hours in the day.
I was very pleased to receive a couple of emails in recent days from Paul Inman, a supporter. The first was prompted by the tragedy in which a young American man, Elliot Rodger, shot dead four men and two women. The content of Paul’s emails take up the remainder of this blog post:
“I love the way that murdering men is now also misogyny. Elliot Rodger didn’t kill those people because he was a misogynist – even though the evidence on his internet sites would suggest he was – he killed them because he was a deeply disturbed and maladjusted individual. His actions are a tragedy and trying to play the gender war card is pretty cheap.
On the other hand I’m happy for people like Laurie Penny to keep labelling everything as misogyny because every new thing that they put under that umbrella just dilutes the meaning of the word almost to irrelevance. When EVERYTHING becomes misogyny, then misogyny will no longer have any meaning at all, and I think we’re almost at that point now. Keep up the good work, Laurie.
There’s a reason we have many words for different things – meaning. The more meanings a word has, the less meaningful it becomes in practice.
For example, dogs have one word for everything:
Woof.
The word means nothing, so we can’t converse with dogs. Feminists have one word that they use to describe anything they don’t like – misogyny – consequently that word now means nothing, and we can’t converse with feminists about their issues.
The English language is a thing of beauty; we have a plethora of words, multiple words for the same thing and even allow foreign words to be used for effect. There’s no excuse for not using the correct word for something when 1,000+ years of linguistic evolution have created a language full to the point of bursting with words.”
Justice for Men & Boys 
I had some more thoughts on feminists and their propensity to cry misogyny at any and all of the world’s ills.
There was a story when I was growing up, I suspect it’s probably still told, about a shepherd who cried “wolf!” and had all the villagers come running to help him defend his flock, laughing at their “gullibility” when they came to his aid. He found it so funny he did it again and he laughed at their stupidity a second time. Then the Wolves came for his flock but when he cried “wolf!” to get help, no-one came because no-one believed him.
I think this is now how I view claims that something is misogyny. I’ll decide for myself what I think is misogyny and how rife it is within society – feminists you can stop saying it now.
LikeLike
The point is, these women are so steeped in the rhetoric of feminism, so indoctrinated in its narratives, and so unutterably unoriginal and unable to develop an argument that moves the whole debate forward in a dynamic way, they are completely cut off from reason. They are bigots in the true meaning of that word – blind, unreasoning belief. Robots, programmed with set responses, like ‘misogynist’ and ‘sexist’ etc. There is no intelligence there. It has all been replaced by dogma and cant. How do you engage with that?
When people become so indoctrinated like this, so brainwashed, they become robbed of their basic broader humanity and they don’t get it. These women don’t get it that men are becoming increasingly p***ed off with them. They don’t get it that this is because of their patently misandrist stance toward men. They don’t get it because they believe they are goddesses when, in fact, they are basically just stupid cows who need to wake up and smell the coffee: that men don’t like what they say, what they do, and how they are unashamedly trying to seek advantage over men by unfair means. That’s just men’s plain old disgust of bad behaviour, it’s not misogyny.
So, all they are left with is to try and set infantile traps for men using their innate female guile. The ‘Do you like women, Mike?’ question is the old black dress, red dress trap isn’t it? The man chooses one and the woman accuses him of not liking her when she wears the other. These manipulative women set men their traps to reaffirm their pre-held beliefs, and so it goes round and round in the feminist echo chamber. Woof, woof, woof. Keep the same old word and spout it out at every opportunity. No amount of rationality will prevail against that. God it’s soooo boring.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Men too can spout the mantra . And women can be perfectly sane http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/04/im-an-anti-sexist-liberal-doctoral-student-wife-and-mother-who-supports-the-mens-rights-movement-over-feminism-heres-why/
As the very question to Mike is sexist.
LikeLike
Well done, Mike If there had been any more time, I think both ladies were giving ground to some extent. (I actually felt sorry for the girl on the left, who seemed out of her depth.) Whenever I’ve been faced with a discussion about the ‘gender pay gap’ (and I used to have discussions regularly when covering this subject with students – predominantly female – on the CIPD programme) I have always suggested that it can’t be true for the same job, or jobs-of-equal-value, because that would be in breach of the Equal Pay Act (+ Amendment). No-one seems to say this – lifestyle choices is usually the only one brought up. I wonder if either lady has come up with an example of where the state disadvantages females yet! David Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 14:41:11 +0000 To: davidhird@live.co.uk
LikeLike