Today I Learned: women are easily manipulable via chocolate. Doesn’t matter how much pain they’re in, you can cure them with chocolate.
Extrapolating from this, it doesn’t matter if they’re allergic to chocolate, you can cure them with chocolate. It probably also doesn’t matter if they’re seriously pissed off at you because you’re being a complete douche nozzle to them, just give ’em chocolate to shut their gobs. And they’ll eat it like Cthulhu slurping up humanity. So next time your pet woman is in one of “those states”, give her chocolate to shut the sweaty beast up, amirite?
But I’m mostly posting this because, for probably the first time ever, when scrolling down to the Bottom Half of the Internet(tm), I was… pleasantly surprised. Despite the video having ~6600 views, having been posted on August 17th, there were exactly six comments all posted within the last two days.
So why was he arrested in May for impersonating a police officer? Does that make women hot too?
Marisa Young 2 hours ago
A convicted criminal is probably not the right kind of person to get personal advice from.
JeffDM 3 hours ago
Oh yeah, it’s hilarious all right. Let’s gather together every stupid stereotype about women in one place and pretend we’re honoring women when we’re really making fun of them! And this guy is a preacher. Is it any wonder that more and more folks are embracing atheism these days? Wow.
Marisa Young 5 hours ago
What a douchelord.
TheArchieSpeck 5 hours ago 2
This bro is a preacher? What a joke.
WobulTterrag 5 hours ago 2
Merica’
Pampl3Moos3 2 days ago
Via Christian Nightmares.
Chocolate? The moron obviously knows less than bugger-all about women. Chocolate indeed.
Shoes, however……amirite?
OK, put the pitchforks away. I’m being ironic. Or post-ironic. Or something.
What is this layout? Is this the fabled improvements we heard about months ago?!
julian: Yup. It’s still in progress, but Matt got to a point where he needed it on a live site to see the bugs. I volunteered to be the guinea pig (and support, somewhat).
A really bad comdeian…but in the clip provided he presented no evidence to me that he ‘hated women’ (the ‘M’ word has been used here in the title)…maybe you are privy to more information than what this poor excuse for a comedy routine had to say?
Oh, I don’t know mofa, I’d say it’s pretty hateful to reduce women to slobbering beasts easily tamed by the sweet taste of chocolate.
Ridiculous.
Here’s a free clue for you. Misogyny is not jumping up and down like a caricature of Yosemite Sam yelling “OOOOH I HATES THEM WIMMINS.” Misogyny, like racism, doesn’t even necessarily involve thinking you *dislike* women. It just involves disdain for their humanity, which Pitt shows in spades.
Oh my, the comments are full of win. And douchelord, for the lol.
Douchelord.
My point being that the ‘M’ word is used too much and too freely. I’m sure we can all agree that his comedy is very poor. He may well be a sexist person (he is doing a comedy routine so I don’t know if that stage character is really him or put on)…I know nothing about him (maybe you all know this guy really well) but from that clip there is no evidence that he ‘hates women’ (‘M’ word definition look it up…unless you are giving yourself the grace to redefine words)…even if he is sexist this does not make him a misogynist.
Howdy! This is kind of off topic but I need some advice from an established blog. Is it difficult to set up your own blog? I’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I’m thinking about making my own but I’m not sure where to start. Do you have any ideas or suggestions? Appreciate it
Mofa – he’s not stood there talking about how much he hates women, no. However, his attitude demonstrates that he thinks of women as inferior to men, not fully human in the way that men are, and not capable of being equals. That’s hateful behavior. The same way that some racists will tell you that they don’t hate non-white people, they just don’t really think of them as fully human. It’s not any less hateful or any less racist.
There’s plenty of men who could quite accurately be described as MRAs who will insist that they don’t hate women. No, as long as women stay in their proper place as servants/sex toys/baby machines they like women just fine. Do you think that they aren’t misogynists?
Hmm, definitions. . . . I see “hate or dislike” seems even the almighty dictionaries can’t agree . . . . Can’t really say I care much for semantic arguments to be honest, anyone can shop around for a definition that includes or leaves out certain words. however think Contempt can certainly qualify for dislike or hate. . .
Mofo – Why do you keep using the term “M word”? Do you believe that typing the word “misogynist” is a problem? Don’t imbue the word with some sort of mythical connotation or suggest that saying it is akin to repeating racist (n word) or sexist (c word) words that rational society no longer use in discourse. Calling someone a misogynist is not the same as calling racially-visible people by racist epithets or calling women by sexist epithets. Please stop your attempts to equate the words.
The preacher-comedian in question makes tired, sexist and humanity-reducing comments about women. Jason finds his routine misogynistic. You don’t have enough evidence to agree? Fine. Don’t agree then. See how easy that was?
YEs, mofa apperently thinks that calling this douchelord a misogynist (because, hey, you know, us women, we’re brute beasts. No real feelings or emotions, or even just sensations, just mindless animals that eat chocolate like a starved pig eats slobber) is the same as calling Obama a n***.
Dictionary arguments about misogyny are hilarious — we’re not redefining anything, you are. From this recent dictionary-misogyny dustup:
Your arguments about the meaning of the word are FOUR HUNDRED YEARS BEHIND THE TIMES.
My point is that your nitpicky objection to the use of the word ‘misogynist’ in the title of a blog post isn’t all that compelling when the person being called a misogynist is demonstrating through his own words that he has an entirely detestable and dehumanizing view of women. Does this fit exactly with the precise definition of the word ‘misogynist’ in the pedantic and boring way possible?
I don’t really care, he’s still a fucking tool. It’s not some magic badge of shame that we should be very, very careful handing out to people. I don’t know why you’re so scared of it.
Methinks MoFo is acting like a j-word.
“Misogyny is not jumping up and down like a caricature of Yosemite Sam yelling “OOOOH I HATES THEM WIMMINS.”
I do have a secret belief that they do so, however. You know, when no one’s around.
I am totally adding douchelord to my personal lexicon.
Re: New Format
Meh…’sOK I guess…except no links to previous and next articles. So to navigate I have to:
1) Go to your blog main page
2) Click on post title or “Read More”
3) Click “Back” (which sends me back to step 1).
This doubles the navigation time and mouse clicks I need to read all posts.
Aaargh….ignore previous post. The previous/next links need to be more visible and go at both the start and the end of the article.
If you use a word too much and in the wrong context the message or point connected with that word can be corrupted and lose its validity. I have been calling the word ‘misogyny’ the “M word’ because I am sick to death of hearing the word. Any time a male is viewed as being sexist he suddenly becomes a misogynist as well. What I am suggesting is try using some other words and reserve the ‘M word’ for those nasty individuals who actually do hate women.
This half rate comedian, in his clip, has given me no reason to believe that he is a misogynist. To make that conclusion you would have to make many assumptions without evidence. I might make some assumptions myself, I bet this guy has a girlfriend or wife? I bet that he enjoys his partner’s company and the company of other women? How can I know this from the video? I can’t! Just like you can’t possibly know if he hates women from this same video footage. Sexist diatribe is not evidence for ‘hating women’, just has racist joke from the lips of an individual does not make them a hater of another group of people.
Oh and by the way Acolyte of Sagan, you called me the ‘J word’ out of the blue…it is early in the morning and I have not brushed the sleep out of my eyes yet, and I can’t be bothered going through the dictionary to find out all the wonderful possibilities for this insult (of course the obvious one comes first to mind) but anyhow Aco,I think you are a J Word myself. And it saddens me and it would sadden Carl that such a “J” has taken the wonderful name of Sagan for their avatar.
I’m pretty sure that it’s misogyny that’s being used too much and too freely, not using the word to talk about it.
I’m sick to death of living with it. Tell you what: let’s get rid of it, and we’ll stop talking about it.
Yes that would be good, together with ‘mysandry’ as well I take it? It would be good to live without both of these things.
I had to quote that twice because I’m laughing so hard. Yes, any time a man is sexist toward women, his actions are misogynist. You’ll note I didn’t say “he is a misogynist”, in the same sense as “what you said was racist” not “you’re a racist”.
Is there an appropriate place to discuss the test layout? I don’t want to derail the discussion.
N. Nescio: In the bug report thread.
Sorry I’m not terribly active blogosphericaly right at the moment.
You’re easily amused JT, in fact not just amused but a ‘hard’ belly laughing you seem to be implying? (or was that really sarcarzuuum!).
It comes down to semantics. You are inventing new meanings for a word. Your attempt to justify the label ‘misogynist’ as applied to the comedian is explained in your earlier post:
“Misogyny, like racism, doesn’t even necessarily involve thinking you *dislike* women. It just involves disdain for their humanity, which Pitt shows in spades”.
“Distain for their humanity”…come on…you got this from that short and crappy routine shown in that video above..aren’t you getting a little melodramitic here? Any excuse to throw the ‘M’ bomb I suppose. Next thing you will be calling Paula Kirby a misogynist.
Who’s making up meanings?
Let me break this down for you.
1: Misogyny is a subset of sexism aimed at women.
2: Sexism is a subset of prejudice in general.
3: Prejudice against women is misogyny according to OED
4: You said “any male who’s sexist is automatically called misogynist” as though that’s a bad thing
5: I said, “Yes. That’s correct.” And laughed heartily. Because 1+2=3.
And yet you posted here with the specific purpose of discussing the word and its usage.
This has already been pointed out to you, but you failed to recognize that it was the stand-up act that was called misogynist, not the comedian delivering it. Therefore no assumptions need to be made, as the act itself expresses a dehumanizing portrayal of (and attitude toward) women.
Do you see how silly this is considering it was the act to which the descriptor ‘misogynist’ was attached, not the comedian himself?
Actually it is. What evidence other than a person’s actions and words could you possibly consider to determine whether or not they hold a particular viewpoint or attitude?
As far as I can tell you’re the only person in the comments here who is saying that they didn’t get that from the video. Apparently people in the fucking youtube comments section got that. I definitely got it.
You are defining the word ‘misogyny’ so narrowly that it becomes entirely useless in almost ANY context, and then taking issue with the fact that the video doesn’t meet your extremely specific qualifications for accepting its usage in the title. There’s nowhere to go from that, so why should anyone care about your objection at all?
“Prejudice against women is misogyny according to OED”
I have checked all the main online dictionaries, Oxford, Webster etc. I have checked my Pocket Oxford Dictionary and my Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary (the only dictionaries I own) and they all say the very same thing “Misogyny – hatred of women”…so I am forced to ask the next question…are you just making stuff up?
“And yet you posted here with the specific purpose of discussing the word and its usage”.
Yes, when you have a point to make you do need to discuss the matter. What you are implying is that if I have an issue with the way a word is used I should remain silent? You would love that wouldn’t you…a land of candy where no one gets cross and no one ever disagrees with you…in your dreams.
“This has already been pointed out to you, but you failed to recognize that it was the stand-up act that was called misogynist, not the comedian delivering it. Therefore no assumptions need to be made, as the act itself expresses a dehumanizing portrayal of (and attitude toward) women”.
That may be your subjective opinoin but we live in a world where not everyone agrees about different ‘stuff’. I would not use the ‘M’ word to describe the 2 minutes I saw on the video. If comdeians were not allowed to offend sometimes then we would have no comedians and we would not have comedy…though I have to add that this particular comedian is extremely bad an I found nothing funny about his act…but many women and men in the audience did (I heard them and so did you).
No sexist diatribe is NOT evidence that someone is a misogynist (you hear and use the word so much that you have lost its true meaning)..plus he is also a comedian and comedians sometimes work with themes and characters which do not reflect their own beliefs in order to set up comical situations..we often laugh at mis-fortune and dark material and this can lead, through humour, to insight, personal reflection, social change. This guy is mild..he talks about chocolate, he talks about women…bad humour, slightly sexist but in no way (in my opinion) does this act qualify for ‘misogynistic’. I am certain you can find true examples of misogynistic comdey material out there on the www, but this is not one of them.
“As far as I can tell you’re the only person in the comments here who is saying that they didn’t get that from the video….”.
Oh sorry, I didn’t realise…that must mean that I am wrong! I give in! You win. You got me with that sentence above. How could I have been so stupid?
What actual Oxford Dictionary are we talking about..the Shorter Oxford? or is it the really long one that takes up an entire bookself? I would like to check for myself because I have not seen the word ‘predjudice’ used in any dictionary definition so far. Type, year published would be a good starter.
On the subject of comedy and misogyny.
Tim Minchin…everyone loves Tim. He is funny and an atheist and he supports social justice issues and the environment through his comedy. We love him! “Storm’ is my personal favourite. But take a look at his song ‘confessions’. If you think that Matt Pitt is a misogynist then after listening to ‘confessions’ Tim Minchin will look to you to be the ‘king of misogyny’………or is he just a comdedian making social comment? If you are going to be consistent you will have to declare Tim’s act ‘misogynist’…but many people out there in the real world, on the other side of this blog will disagree with you.
Oh for fuck’s sake THE OED.
As said by Jason pretty early on.
Do you even know what the OED is? Have you ever seen one of the things in print?
Are you aware that it you have to get things into a short book instead of 20 heavy foliants you have to make cuts?
Look, it’s nobody’s fault that you argue about lexicography and semantics without understanding either of it but yours.
I have done a little research and I reject your claim that I am 400 years behind the times:
“Dictionary arguments about misogyny are hilarious — we’re not redefining anything, you are. From this recent dictionary-misogyny dustup:
Your arguments about the meaning of the word are FOUR HUNDRED YEARS BEHIND THE TIMES”. -JT
The Oxford Dictionary has only recently changed the definition of ‘misogyny’ to include ” ‘prejudice’ against women”. The Webster has not as yet. This new defintion has come about because people like you use the word so freely. The Engilsh language is constantly evolving and this ‘expansion’ of the meaning is only contributing to the ‘watering down’ of its impact as a word…yes but it will be used more which will annoy me. So lets just put this in perspective. In England, Australia, Canada (perhaps) and New Zealand (perhaps) your definition of ‘misogyny’ holds, but in the good ol’ USA, home of the brave and the Webster Dictionary, my definition still holds true which is : ‘misogyny – hatred of women’ because Webster has not accepted OED’s latest definition.
Let me aks you something, mofa. Since you’re coming from Australia, and since I linked you to the “debate” regarding Macquarie catching up with OED and language itself, you probably already knew about the link I added earlier in a comment and which you conveniently left out when you blockquoted me. Are you therefore against any evolution of language from original English? If so, you won’t consider “aks” a typo.
Oh dear, we have a linguistic idiot amongst us.
Listen, language is always changing. It’s not “watering down” anything. Language is a system of communication based on mutual agreement.
Dictionaries reflect said agreement.
If you want to play Don Quijote and rage against evil dictionaries watering your pure language down I suggest you get yourself an OED and learn it off by heart. Then you stick to the oldest entry for every word you can find there and see how well you do.
No, goddammit, you will stop fucking misrepresenting what I’ve said. I expressed puzzlement that you would even decide to have this discussion because you are, as you’ve said, tired of hearing the word misogynist. I didn’t say a single fucking thing about you remaining silent. Go back up, read my response again, show me where I said you should remain silent, or concede that this is a misrepresentation of what I actually said and fucking apologize.
I know you wouldn’t, because you define it so narrowly that it’s practically useless, and your only argument for why anyone else should do the same is an appeal to the dictionary and some weird resistance to the continued evolution of the English language.
Again, how can I determine whether someone holds a particular viewpoint or attitude without considering their words and actions?
Fucking save it, I’m not trying to ‘win’ anything here. I was just pointing out that you seem to be an outlier in this regard.
Wow. That’s just fucking stupid.
“Let me aks you something, mofa. Since you’re coming from Australia, and since I linked you to the “debate” regarding Macquarie catching up with OED and language itself, you probably already knew about the link I added earlier in a comment and which you conveniently left out when you blockquoted me. Are you therefore against any evolution of language from original English? If so, you won’t consider “aks” a typo”.
I was slow to do my research and I do not own that Oxford Dictionary that is a whole bookcase long. Yes I appreciate that the English language is an ever evolving thing. The OED modified its definition in 2002 to include ‘prejudice against women’ because Feminists had been misusing the word (or should I say abusing the word) for so long. The Australian Maquire Dictionary only ‘caught up’ with what the OED had done 10 years ago, after the Prime Minister’s (Julia Gillard) speech earlier this year in 2012. The Webster Dictionary has been described as ‘looking on this matter with interest’ which means that they have not yet changed their definition of the word. So this subtle (but far reaching) change to the word is new to me and new to all English speaking people (10 years is ‘new’ in relation to the age of a language).
Since the definition of misogyny up until OED’s 2002 issue has been ‘woman hater’ , (miso means “hatred,” and gune means “woman.”), to claim that my argument is 400 years behind the times, as you did, is a false claim (may be even a dishonest claim), unless you dispute the time line I have described above.
I am hoping that when more people ‘discover’ this subtle yet far reaching change to the word that they are as outraged as I am. I also hope that the OED has or is considering looking at the way they define ‘misandry’.
Anyhow after all this linguistics ‘stuff’ and adjustment to definition I still do not find the Matt Pitt video ‘misogynistic’. Did anyone take a look at Tim Minchin’s ‘Confessions’? I want to know if anyone believes that Tim Minchin has a misogynistic song here.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/redefining-misogyny-spreads-to-us-as-merriam-webster-dictionary-follows-debate/story-e6frg6nf-1226498366733
Guess what dictionary that link is about? Thats right — Merriam-Webster.
And considering you’re in Australia, home of the wallaby and the Macquarie dictionary that’s already followed suit to expanding the definition to cover the same sorts of prejudices that “misanthropy” already covers about humans, you’ve got zero legs to stand on. None. You can talk all you want about how we’ve watered down the definition of “misogyny” to cover not just intense hatred of women (whose definition might fit a handful of people in all mankind), to cover also entrenched prejudice against women — but that’s just making the word that much more useful.
You’re just butthurt because three dictionaries have stepped up to tell you that your weak-ass dictionary defense is not going to stop the rising swell of feminist attitudes against such entrenched prejudice any longer.
You have exactly one more comment to present a cogent argument that doesn’t involve “but it used to only mean hatred therefore everyone else but me is wrong”. And go.
And by the way, MRAs are already using “misandry” in exactly the same sense, though their examples of misandry seem to include anything that benefits women but not men (as opposed to denigrating men explicitly).
YOU WIN the dictionary definition battle. I concede. Bravo. I should have done more research before commenting. The whole definition change ‘thing’ slipped past me and has taken me by surprise.
But…
Your early claim that I am “400 years behind the times with my definition” has not been backed up with convincing argument and is wrong if you accept the fact that OED only expanded the definition in 2002.
You have not made comment on Tim Minchin’s comedy ‘piece’ “Confessions” which is a good ‘litmus test’ because judging by your subsrciber’s standards this song should be labled ‘misogynistic’ yet we know that Tim Minchin is a sceptic, atheist, liberal, freethinking, socially progressive, enviromentally conscious, funny dude. Can you do ‘misogynistic’ things and not be a misogynist? Is Tim Minchin a misogynist? Is his song “Confessions” a misogynistic song?
I ignored the “Confessions” sidebar because no, it is not misogynistic to say “fuck I love boobs though”. So do I. Every heterosexual female feminist I know also loves penis, in contradiction to the trope that feminists want to castrate all men. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Acknowledging sexual desires is not misogynist — forgetting that the owner of the boobs has autonomy and sexual and bodily self-direction and is not for instance a caricature slavering chocolate beast, however… well, that’s a different story isn’t it?
Let’s say someone did a stand-up routine about how black people just love watermelon and fried chicken and how no matter what other ills they withstood, either of those would fix the problem for them instantly. Would you quibble about them not being automatically racist just because they’re expressing prejudices against black people that reduce them to a stereotype? No? You wouldn’t? Why not?
(INB4 “your analogy isn’t perfect” or “that isn’t even racist”.)
Additionally, as I said much much earlier in this thread, Oxford has examples dating back to the 1600s in their updated definition. As a parallel, which I keep having to go back to, the word “misanthropy” is exactly as old and it’s always meant the same sort of thing for human beings in general as opposed to just women. Take, for instance, the 1666 play The Misanthrope. It is not about someone who hates humanity — it is about someone who is constantly disappointed by humanity who nonetheless tries to take a lover.
How any of this has anything to do with whether or not reducing womankind to caricatures is misogynist, however, is kinda boggling to me. Perhaps what I meant when I said “you have one comment” is you should actually explain why suggesting all women are easily-manipulable slobbering chocolate fiends isn’t misogynist.
Like looking up “misogyny” in the Oxford English Dictionary online, conveniently found at oed.com? Because it’s right there, in the short form definition, even. So when you said:
You were lying?
So semantisc aside, and using the currently accepted definition (your definition) of ‘misogynist’ is Matt Pitts crap routine (the 2 minutes worth we see) ‘misogynistic’ – NO.
Lets break down what he talks about.
1. Chocolate…is talking about chocolate ‘misogynistic’? – no.
2. Women’s love of chocolate…is this concept ‘misogynistic’? – no.
3. He ‘paints’ a situation of a woman in hospital….is this ‘misogynistic’? – no.
4. He goes further and ‘paints’ a situation where this woman is suffering pain (I think he is implying childbirth), this is a normal situation which happens every day around the planet….is the story of woman in pain in a hospital ‘misogynistic’? – no.
5. He then describes a scenario where a woman is distracted from her pain by being offered chocolate. distracting the brain from its focus on pain is a common practice in the medical industry…is this scenario ‘misogynistic’? – no.
6. Do all of the above, 1-6, when put together create a ‘misogynistic’ tale? – no.
Matt Pitt was generalising – yes! but so do all comedians. He is doing (very bad) observational comedy. He is deriving comedy from his observation that women love chocolate so much more than men. The comedy is about chocolate and womens’ love for it not the demeaning of women. It is well documented in many peer reviewed studies that higher percentages of women over men have chocolate cravings:
“Women More Affected
Women seem to be more prone to chocolate cravings than men. The Diabetes Association report found that only 15 percent of males appear to crave chocolate, as much as 40 percent of women do – and 75 percent of them claim that absolutely nothing other than chocolate can satisfy their appetite.
Because chocolate cravings may be influenced by a deficiency in magnesium, that this may be why some experience an increase in chocolate cravings during PMS.
For most people craving chocolate is in no way harmful, but if it rises to the level of “binge eating” it can be a real problem. Chocolate is the food most desired by women who binge eat, because of a brain chemical that gives them physical pleasure from the sweet indulgence, says University of Michigan nutritionist Adam Drewnowski.
Drewnowski’s research found that Naloxone can reduce craving in binge eaters, but Naloxone is available only intravenously, which makes it impractical for chronic bingers. Drewnowski is searching for an easier-to-take drug.
Herraiz’s finding was reported in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, a monthly peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society.”
Now I am glad JT to hear that you do not find Tim Minchin’s song ‘misogynistic’, I don’t either, but you do not speak for all feminists. Many would find it offensive. As I have explained above, I do not believe that Matt Pitt has been ‘misogynistic’ but Tim, with his song, is deriving his humour by deliberately juxtaposing A. the serious issue of womens rights, (rights to control their own bodies, how safe they can feel, the freedom to wear what they want and not be judged by that and the right not to be treated as objects) with B. His frivolous facination with womens mammary glands (and how he likes to rub and eat them). It is the ‘shock’ of the juxtaposition that is the basis of the comedy. Some women and many Feminists would not find this humourous (womens’ rights is too serious to be joking about some may think) and Tim is just rubbing those ‘boobs’ in ther faces. Tim is deliberatley being controversial. Tim is saying “I can care about women, womens’ rights and equality but I can also dream and think about their sexual bits” (surely Tim is guilty of objectification here?). So Tim Minchin is not being ‘misogynistic’ with this song? I bet if Matt Pitt sang the same words written by Tim he would be branded a ‘misogynist’, why? Does Matt look more like a ‘redneck’ than Tim?
If you can explain in simple English why the Matt Pitt sketch is (without a doubt) a ‘misogynistic’ piece, then please do so because I can’t see it. Up until now I have read alot of people telling me that it is without explaining why. Remember there is chocolate, a woman in pain in a hospital, her love for chocolate and finally her focus being diverted from the pain to the enjoyment of eating that sweet, smooth,brown, melt-in-your-mouth delight.
HELP!
The evil femininist have stolen MY language! Elebenty!!!!
Women acting like normal agents, can’t be havig that!
+++
No, it really is a symptom of the whole problem when people argue about how much prejudice, dicrimination and sexual assault we have to take before we’re allowed to use a word men appently have a patent on.
*
How funny how reasonable this sounds when you leave out some quite important bits like:
Does he portray women like beasts who just feed on chocolate? Yes.
Does he portray women like whatever the problem is, the solution is chocolate because they’re so simple minded? Yes.
Does that lead to the impression that women aren’t really people but some sort of strange animal? Yes.
And now we come to the classical “It’s science, therefore it can’t be sexist” defense. Science has proven that women are just dumb beasts who will be distracted by a piece of chocolate like a dog by a steak! He’s just telling the truth! You dogmatic feminists who simply refuse to accept all the superior science that simply proves that you’re inferior with bad impulse control.
Wrong. It has been explained to you quite often. The problem of you not understanding it lies with you.
Yes, it sounds almost begning if phrase it like that, consciously leaving out the things like “eats like a pig” “feels no more pain” (well, why provide adequate pain-relief for women, all they need is chocolate. It’s not like that isn’t a well known problem in medicine.) becase she has chocolate, and that this isn’t about the strange quirks of one individual woman but about all women.
So, now I’m waiting for your explenation why Chris Brown also isn’t misogynist in beating up Rhianna, probably because he sent her chocolates afterwards.
*Wow, first it’s incompetence with words, now it’s incompetence with numbers between 1 and 10