All Blog Entries

I was out a couple of weeks ago and got talking to two nice seeming young Italian women. We were getting along fine and our respective groups merged to produce a larger, more sociable one. The two women started having a chat in their native tongue and when I asked them what they were discussing they told me ‘Feminism, of course’. Is it so widespread and ‘normal’ for woman to be embroiled within the slimy tentacles of the feminist ideology that we men should expect two young, attractive and educated women to be engaging on it’s debate while out with other friends (including men) on a Friday night?

‘You are joking’ I irked in hope. No such luck I’m afraid. The less pretty of the two, presumably putting herself in the ‘more intelligent’ role, went on to explain to me that she doesn’t hate men and that all she wants is equality. Nice try! After I asked her about her views on abortion, child support, parental alienation, false rape claims, domestic violence, retirement age, prostate cancer research, disparity in criminal sentencing, state schools and sexism in the media she did what any good old man ‘-ater’ would do - she called me a misogynist and left. Her friend (the more attractive one) gave me her mobile number, so maybe we’ll meet again, I certainly hope so.

This episode made me think about how feminists have conjured an idea that their values don’t amount to misandry, and that any opposition to their cause amounts to misogyny. How did they convince women that they don’t hate men? They obviously don’t hate men; they simply want to ‘-ate’ them, as follows:


Dominate

Ever heard the term ‘female empowerment’, one of the most popular phrases used by the feminists? Well if you have and you think they don’t want to dominate men then you should pop your hairy evil ass over to dictionary.com and look up a definition. Heck I’ll even do it for you (edited):

empower
–verb (used with object, eg. )

To give power or authority to; authorize, especially by legal or official means.

Note also that the 4 quotes (uses in a sentence) that were linked to this word were all snippets of feminists speaking in the media. Need I say more?


Castigate

All men are rapists! It is a fact, if you want to believe it or not, that if a woman makes a false rape allegation against you then you can forget about due process, innocent until proven guilty and any other civil liberty you think you have. You must prove that she is lying, simple as that. Why would she lie about something so serious and put herself through the ‘ordeal’ of a rape trial? This is the exact attitude that you will face from the authorities concerned, wherever you happen to live. The laws regarding rape have all been put in place by feminists and/or to appease ‘women’s groups’ (publicly funded and run by feminists).

The domestic violence laws across the Anglo-sphere castigate men every day (VAWA, mandatory arrests, ‘Go’ orders etc). Men are forced into programs that demean and emasculate them to ‘correct’ their oppressive behaviours toward women. Men are always given more severe punishments than women in criminal trials. The only people that are (tirelessly) campaigning for legislation of this nature are feminists, who don’t hate men. Maybe they just hate evil penises… ‘Castigate his penis now’!

The ‘patriarchy’ is to blame for everything. We, as men, are at fault for all of life’s ills and injustices. We therefore deserve to be castigated, what is a little bit of castigation when we’ve enjoyed millennia of power? It isn’t hatred, just ‘-atred’.


Subjugate

Aside from the other evil ways feminists wish to command and conquer the human race discussed above, there is always the oldest and dirtiest trick – sexual subjugation. ‘You’re not getting any until you do what I want’. Ever had a girlfriend tell you that? Listen to any feminist discussion of pornography and you will come across the same shitty position: it’s bad if men are looking at women in a sexual way, however it is perfectly fine, and indeed commendable (you go girl!) for a woman to use her body as a means of ‘empowerment’ (see above). Feminists are acutely aware of the male sex drive and its power, and they plan to use it to its full extent.


One thing that feminists forget in their attack on men is their real nature. You see, as you look back through History - that men have always (and always will) by their very essence of masculinity been willing to fight and die for the well being of their peers. There will be (and has been) martyrs of all scope, size, shape, creed and colour; who see the feminists for what they really are and will fight them, to the death. Willingness to die for their cause is a trait I seriously doubt ...

Whaddya mean "extremists?"
Anyone who advocates for a misogynous or misandrous position at the extreme(eg people taking the SCUM Manifesto seriously).

Th...th...they wanna hurt me?!? WHY!?!?! *gasp*
Well of course they do, you're one of them and they don't like you. They think you have too many germs and you have cooties and you want to opppress them! Oh and apparently you're boring and dull(that's what a certain extremist told me about you, sorry.)

Bu...bu...but I just want to be equal!
That's what we all want, we want the freedom to have choices and to have happy lives of sunshine and rainbows and magic!

What do I do to get rid of them?
Well that's simple, you defeat them with the IAMRATIONALANDAWESOMEANATOR2000! Oh and I guess ignoring the piss ants works just as well(but it's not as fun or funny to play the rationality game with them.)

I see. But doing nothing won't get rid of them!
Damn, you sure are a whiner! They are the little flying shits in the wind that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things, no one is going to take them serious, getting your panties in a bunch over them is just going to have you drained and prone to the same behavior as them.

How do I pick out a normal(read: sane) ___________ from the rest of the crowd?
If they foam at the mouth, speak in hyperbole about political issues, have some sort of irrational prejudice, stink, and/or have some sort of wild look in the eye and you agree with them after this conversation <STRIKE>then you are a dumbass that deserves what you get</STRIKE> I mean you're still here? Damn, I must be some sort of awesome speaker-upper!

That was mean!
Tough shit! Got any other questions? Or are you going to continue to be a dumbass?

One more. Um....how do I avoid becoming an extremist?
Really? That was your question? What a <STRIKE>stupid</STRIKE> bright person you are! Use your common sense and actually be rational to avoid becoming a stinky extremist.

Originally posted on
http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.c...with-moar.html

So...I was reading this on Feminist Critics, and I feel that it was begging for a blog post! The title of the page is entitled, "What Feminism got Right." Now, many of my MRA readers and some of a particular neutral variety might disagree, but I have for the most part decided that both sides of the gender war thingy mabobber are at least right.

So...to make a stand on where I stand with some issues and feminist ideas:

1. There is a gender system
Males and females are socialized into masculinities and femininities. Masculine and feminine behavior is not simply determined by biology.

Agreed. This has been known to psychologists for at least 30 years, just pick your theory of choice of how it happens(except Freud for the love the gods anything but Freud). Remember kiddies, gender does not equal biological sex.

2. The gender system is damaging
Masculinities and femininities can be damaging and dehumanizing to both males and females.

Agreed. We should let kids decide for themselves who THEY are.

3. Women are oppressed
Women have suffered various types of systematic mistreatment throughout history, and continue to do so in the present. This mistreatment is unjust. If it can be called “oppression,” then women suffer gender oppression.

Disagreed, I might have been open to the idea maybe in ancient times or the Middle Ages, but to make that claim from the Renaissance up is frankly ridiculous.

4. Sexism exists
Sexism—hateful, contemptuous, bigoted, or discriminatory attitudes based on sex—is real. Sexism can be institutionalized socially and politically. The feminist identification and critique of misogyny has mitigated it to a degree, though institutionalized misogyny still exists.

Agreed and disagreed. Misogyny, for the most part, is a reaction to misandry that men face(but I do agree that both of these attitudes could and should be addressed) . I do not think that misogyny is really institutionalized by law. There are much more legal inequalities that men face.

5. Males have unjust advantages
Males have some systematic advantages over females that they do not have a right to.

Even if so, I don't care for this kind of rhetoric.

6. Marginalization of the experience of women
Prior to feminism, the experience of women was marginalized in academic and scientific disciplines, and in public discourse.

Um...what? I have never researched this, I'll devote a blog post to my research on this topic. T_T;

7. Sexuality involves power dynamics
Under the gender system at least, sexuality is intertwined with power dynamics. E.g. male-dominant, female-submissive, and male-active, female-passive. These power dynamics are not limited to heterosexuality. The link between power dynamics and sexuality can be damaging to people.

*sigh* Sort of, I know normal males that are submissive and gender transgressor females that were submissive. Power dynamics in bed or in relationships are right, for the right people. In fact, I don't really think this is a really legitimate issue.

8. There is something wrong with pornography
Pornography can be dehumanizing toward both its users and towards its participants. Even if pornography can be defended on legal grounds, these liberal arguments doesn’t protect it from moral critique.

Disagreed on the first part, agreed on the second part. If there is a moral problem with porn then it should be criticized on that ground. As for me personally, I do not care if people consume porn or participate in it, that's their business. What authority do I have to condemn something I consume?(Funny tidbit: Lady Porn Day[Google it] was on Tuesday.)

9. There is intersectionality of oppression
Gender oppression and oppression based on race, sexual orientation, or class, can combine multiplicatively (and sometime supramultiplicatively) into oppression that is more than the sum of its parts.

Actually, I agree with that. A poor gay black man for example is probably screwed(excuse the pun)

10. Beauty standards can be damaging
Beauty standards and objectification can be damaging to female self-esteem. It would be both practical and moral to change images of beautiful women in the media in certain ways.

This is something I agree with, but I think it works both ways...hm...? What do MRAs think?

Originally posted on:
http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.c...-all-have.html

A recent Pepsi commercial has created a quite a stir on the internet. Apparently women abusing men in a marriage didn’t go over as well as they planned. Everyone from the False Rape Society to NPR has been rather angry about this. Still the world is not in complete agreement. The core belief behind the opposing argument is “so now any time a man gets hurt it is domestic violence or misandry? Whatever happened to physical comedy?”

You would think this would be a clear cut case. The woman is physically harming her husband because she doesn’t like the way he is behaving. In order to correct the way he acts he has to get kicked, shoved into a pie, and has a bar of soap shoved into his mouth. With a bit of bad luck he would have been hit in the head with a can as well.

And yes, you are expected to laugh at this.

Still on a broader level, there is a point to be made. Do physical comedy and sexism overlap? In the media for some reason they do, but if you take a step back it is easy to clarify. There is quite a bit of “humor” found it men getting slapped around by women for doing stupid things. Boyfriends are hit by girlfriends, husbands are pummeled by wives, and girls beat the living daylights out of boys. Sometimes it is adults that end up hurting each other (The episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where they are selling the Girl Scout cookies and Raymond gets beaten up and his wife has to save him).

I look at this in the same way as I see the Pepsi ad. The physical harm is meant for correctional purposes.

When we try to reshape people’s behavior in real life and we see them being physically harmed it qualifies as abuse. It’s a basic aspect of positive punishment in the psychological concept of operant conditioning. Increase the burden and pain on someone and their behavior will change out of fear. It’s a simple concept that is rather nasty in its most extremes.

This is a key aspect of misandric physical comedy. When it is meant to correct behavior, especially in a relationship, it is straight up abuse. But somehow if you put it in a situation comedy and add a laugh track, you have a classic scene that people will remember for years. It may even be a key point in winning you an Emmy!

This is abuse, and it is not funny.

Now what qualifies as physical comedy that is not abuse?

Read more here...

"In the past, neither sex had power; both sexes has roles: women's role was raise children; men's role was raise money."-Warren Farrell

I have been thinking about this quote lately and considering the history of our species, and I have been considering the sexism involved when people don't fit into a predefined role. It's just like this TV Tropes page, there are all kinds of double standards when it comes to either gender, like apparently to many men I am an Evil Matriarch, because I'm a Dominant female and apparently my submissive husband is disgusting, or at least according to some. Now consider the sexism involved in claiming how a woman and man are supposed to act, and if you break the mold, you're Wrong(TM). It is my honest opinion that breaking the mold can be a good thing.

Not only do gender roles affect our sex lives, with sexist assumptions, it also impacts our choices. The sexism my husband faces for being a house husband, willingly, is appalling. Never before have I seen people make sexist assumptions about my husband because he's submissive and he took my last name. He's told by men and women alike that he isn't a "real" man because he's happy cooking and cleaning in our household. Oh noes! My husband isn't a "real" man!

I love how people are all keen on enforcing a gender paradigm that doesn't work now. Most people do not realize the sexism of looking at people for what they are and not who they are. Now my previous post was focused on men, but the same ideas apply to women. Some women are masculine and some women are feminine, there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is berating men and women who choose to be different. That is pure sexism, in my opinion.

I know that many people will refuse to accept that people do transgress against their own sex and gender expectations, but, I believe that is a form of sexism. My husband and I transgress gender norms, and I'm pretty sure that plenty of others do so within the manosphere and femisphere. There is nothing wrong with that, nor is there a problem with acknowledging that gender is a much more complicated concept than I have lady parts therefore I have to act like x.

There are many reasons I support the concept of male liberation, because I think men should be free from social and cultural expectations on how they are supposed to act. It has happened for women, it <STRIKE>needs</STRIKE> must happen for men.

Originally posted on:
http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.c...ole-redux.html

The truth is out there, as Fox Mulder tells us, and it isn't very far away at all...

The truth about relationships? Well that's a little more difficult to discover, mostly because of the female-centric media stuffing rubbish down our throats. If we were to listen to them, as instructed by our feminist overlords, we would come to a very different conclusion as to what is the undeniable truth, which I will discuss later. I'm splitting this post into 2 parts: 1. The feminist version of reality and 2. Reality. I sincerely hope it is evident why.

1. The feminist version of reality
The evil bigots that call themselves feminists would have us believe that, for the most part, (apart from when he is truly whipped) all 'normal' modern relationships follow a similar trend. Their usual bumf would normally go something like as follows:

The man is so powerful (physically, emotionally and politically) that the woman is subjected to his every whimsical demand, or suffer from 'violence' (apparently a fate worse than death for poor defenseless women, although men are obviously immune to it). She is sexually oppressed by the man, who denies her the freedom to express her sexual desires towards other men. She is forced, by her evilpenis wielding partner, to either stay at home and look after the children he forced her to have (by insisting on having sex); or to slave away at work to pay for the children he forced her to have because he (as a powerful male patriarch) is too lazy to earn enough to support them alone. If she stays at home she is forced, by our patriarchal society, to watch misogynistic shows on TV (during the break of her heavy housewife schedule) that are aimed at men and the maintenance of patriarchal power. If she goes to work she faces much discrimination in the workplace; for example she is less likely to be considered for a job, she will earn less, there is a limit to how far she can progress in said job, she will be subjected to daily sexual harassment and sexist comments, and won't be taken seriously by her chauvinist colleagues.

When the working day is over, she is constantly treading on eggshells because the evilpenis could become 'violent' at any time. She must meticulously prepare all of his food and do all of the housework to his unbelievably high standards - regardless of how many hours each of them works, and lives in a constant state of fear that she will be deemed inadequate and subsequently further abused.

She is forced to denigrate her body regularly to keep up with his unyielding and rampant male sex drive (evilpenis?), and is 'psychologically coerced' into sex, if not raped, frequently. He shows no respect to her or his children (whom he is abusive to also), all he cares about is maintaining his 'privilege'. She is often humiliated by him and his desire to mate with other females, he constantly ogles or leers at other women on television that are innocently exploited by other evilpenises into showing her body and being sexually provocative.

Society has conditioned the man to treat women like slaves that he can do unto whatever he wants, whenever he wants - and she had better support him, or face the wrath of his violence. This accentuates his own natural tendency to be violent and oppressive, being an evilpenis. Larger society obviously supports his moral worldview, being the toxic masculine patriarchy that it so clearly is, and any pleas for help from the woman are met with a stern silence and a 'go back to the kitchen' from all of the supposed lawful upholders, who are all sexist evilpenises anyway. She is stuck, trapped by an evilpenis and his evilpenis accomplices - a slave and a prisoner to all evilpenises everywhere.

What a terrible plight. You cannot help but feel compassion for this woman right? Sorry make that all women. Please remember that every single domestic violence 'charity' and rape crisis centre, relationship guidance company, violence education program and your local council/government considering how to tackle dv/rape/family breakup operate under the assertion that all of these things are true (google duluth model).

2.Reality

Men in our society are conditioned, from birth, to believe certain things. Inclusive of these are: that hitting women is wrong, women deserve respect and are equal to men, rapists and paedophiles are evil, that he should shoulder the financial burden of his family, that any wrongs he may face are a 'fact of life' and are to be dealt with accordingly and with honour, that the protection of any women in his life is his duty and also that sex is dirty or somehow wrong - amongst many other things.

Women are conditioned to believe something different, including all of the claptrap in part 1. Men have oppressed them since the beginning of time, society favours ...

When I started this blog, I clearly identified as both an ifeminist and a MRA, but due to some recent changes in many of my pre-concieved notions of gender politics I have decided to lay down my new position on the state of things and drop BOTH labels, I am neither, I am a unique person. I have came to the opinion that neither ideology captures my feeling of the current state of affairs between men and women nor does neither quite fit my goals or attitudes regarding sexism in any form or any other form of bigotry. I have decided that is imperative to aknowledge that both sides of the spectrum in gender politics are indeed, at least partially correct, in that misandry and misogyny exists in some form in our culture and society.

My goals(and the reason for my discussion board) are thusly:
•Address all forms of sexism when I see it.
•Cultivate a stronger relationship between reasonable and fair feminists(MRAs: they do exist) and MRAs(Feminists: they do exist) and push for reasonable discourse between the two camps in addressing the bigger problem of sexism in our culture.
•Support initiatives based on documented and unbiased facts, like the facts on SAVE and RAINN.
•Oppose the extremists and unreasonable people on both sides.
•Encourage men and women to accept their individual responsibility in creating the state of things.
•And finally, engage in open discourse with others(who identify as neither) who are open to the idea of solving the problem of sexism, in a polite and respectful manner.

In conclusion, my goals and ideology have change drastically in the last few weeks due to my experiences in both the femisphere and manosphere. I do not oppose either feminism or the MRM, as a whole, because I do think that both sides are at least partially right, but I do oppose certain elements in both movements, and I do not identify as either. Period. If I agree with a particular issue in the feminist camp it does not mean I disagree with the MRA camp as a whole or vice versa. Fair? I support genuine equality as far as it can be mustered.

Originally posted on:
http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.c...ose-of-my.html

Right here.

I think this is an essential step in correcting the current problem.

Don't be shy! I won't bite! :-)

Come and register, and discuss!

(Serious Note: Now please bear in mind that I am personally a tribalist(I am not folkish) and I don't share many of Stephen McNallen's viewpoints regarding other forms of paganism and I am a supporter of Heathens against Hate, also understand that this post is going to be harsh and critical of our society that we allow for ourselves)

I have decided to post about this in relation to my politics because it seems to be very misunderstood. While I certainly respect Stephen McNallen's organization, the Asatru Folk Assembly, and many of it's values, I also disagree with many of McNallen's views of other pagans and his politics.

I find it neccesary to mention that at many times I feel that my personal politics go against many morals I am supposed to teach and promote to my Kindred and society at large. nderstandably, I am in a difficult position in the context of gender politics, I have to make stands in the areas that I think moral ground is at stake. I have to stick to my convictions and promote what I think is right, no matter what the majority tells me. Undoubtedly, this is a very difficult prospect. In this way, I emulate Nanna, the wife of Balder, who epitomizes feminine courage. Nanna died because of the heartbreak and love she felt for Balder after he died. Just imagine if we had even a fraction of that love for our partners, we would live in a much happier world.

I remember the fiasco on the Wild Hunt, after McNallen rebutted an Alternative Right article, here's the deal, I have no problem with people finding truth on their own since I'm all blind men and a elephant on spiritual matters, what is insulting is when some people try to dictate that a spiritual movement is bigoted with no REAL evidence. Just because I worship gods and goddesses and promote alternative alternative lifestyle choices does not make me bigoted towards men, normal heterosexuality, or masculinity, in fact I don't feel threatened at all by normal men or normal heterosexuals.

I love people and the variety of human expression(well except the obvious exceptions), and I happen to support them, because it is moral to me that these people express themselves the way that they are intended by the web of Wyrd. It is not my place to judge(nor do I want to) these people for what the Wyrd sisters have spun for them in the great web.

When it comes to the issues affecting men and women, I have made some moral stances on what is acceptable, I do not tolerate pathetic excuses for inappropriate attitudes from either sex. I do not accept that because I get PMS, I have a license to be a bitch or even harm somebody, it is my moral duty to accept responsibility for my actions. People need the courage to own up to their own inadequacies and accept that they are partly to blame for an issue affecting them. We are not victims of some big bad conspiracy out to oppress us, we are the targets of values imposed by ourselves and others like you. People need to wake up and smell the roses and accept their part in the state of things.

I know I'm coming off as harsh, but this is the reality, whether you, my dear reader, like it or not. I echo this sentiment:

We do not need salvation. All we need is the freedom to face our destiny with courage and honor.

This is a fundamental truth of gender politics. We do not need some arcane and abstract salvation proposed by some political movement we need a movement that accepts that everyone shares equal responsibility and has the freedom to bear their destines with courage, whether a man chooses to be a house husband or if a woman decides to be a provider. That is their burden to bear, that is what their desinies brought for them. It is indeed immoral for them to run in cowardice or not to have considered the impact of their choice.

Ignorance, cowardice, and hatred is what fuels this culture of bigotry, if someone says something hateful or ignorant you fight against that wickedness, you do not whimper and whine like a pathetic worm, you fight, anything less is immoral and pure cowardice.

As a final note: No, I am not attacking either the feminist movement in all it's forms, or am I attacking the MRM in all it's forms, I am attacking the individuals that whine and bitch about how hard they have it or the idiocy they encounter. I apologize to those who might have gotten a misconception of the point of this post.

Originally posted here:
http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.c...-politics.html

Clarisse Thorn has written a very good post on her blog. Even though I disagree with many of her ideas, the core of the message was clear, and is exactly the kind of thinking we need in the blogosphere. You may recall my recent prediction in this post, I have very mixed feelings about the state of things and I am not entirely sure that we are able fix it.

Individuals bear responsibility, but culture affects these things too.

That is the core of this post, this makes sense, who'd really argue that, feminist or MRA alike? It's like this Yahoo Question here, why do we try to put the blame on the opposite sex? It is neither the fault of men OR women for the state of things. This answer seems to make a lot of sense regarding this topic:

Sorry, it's tempting to think that, and plenty of people do, but it's inaccurate.

It is quite possible for there to be social patterns and arrangements that can be genuine barriers for most people affected by them.

For example, people sometimes say, "If Booker T. Washington could overcome racism and become as successful and accomplished as he did, why didn't all blacks of his era (or today for that matter)?"

These folks want to see the exception (Washington, and his exceptionality) rather than the rule. And blame anyone who didn't achieve what Washington for their lack of success, rather than to see the institutionalized racism that exists then, and the forms it takes now.

It's the same with sexism. It's tempting to believe every woman can do and be anything because of what some women are achieving. However, that's overlooking the very real discrimination and institutionalized sexism that make it much harder for women to, for example, get into the highest levels of polital office at the same rates as men, let alone the Presidency of the U.S. Of course, there are women working toward those goals. But acknowledging those barriers or obstacle courses doesn't mean they aren't working to achieve those goals.

And in fact, naming discriminatory obstacles is a first step toward changing them, or at the very least, in strategizing ways to get around them.

The thing is that people prefer male leaders, at least according to this study. I'm not saying it's wrong because it's what the people want, it is still "we the people," right? But, is the reasoning people gave, male or female, sexist? Yes. I don't deny that.


Clarisse Thorn had all kinds of gems in her blog post

One of my wise activist friends once said to me, “Movements for social justice seem to inevitably center on the concerns of the most privileged members of each movement.” The only way to work against this is with consciousness: trying to build a strongly diverse perspective in every moment, from square one. And given how privilege and oppression and violence replicate themselves, it may be especially problematic for me to have the kind of privilege that I have, and simultaneously come from a feminist background that has educated me about the way women have consistently been shut down … unless I resolve to watch myself and never feel entitled to shut others down, or ignore their perspectives, in the same way

.......

But — while the concept of “checking your privilege”, of trying not to speak without understanding the experiences of others, is one that I have personally found valuable and useful — sometimes the word “privilege” or the idea of “privilege” can be used to silence people who have good intentions and valid critiques. And it’s up to us to keep an eye on our motivations and our intentions and our goals: to make sure that we aren’t telling people with privilege to sit down and shut up out of narrow-mindedness or even our own forms of power hunger.

Now recall, that I have decided to stop using privilege rhetoric, in my own personal writings and ideology(which is still a work in progress), but I agree with the gist of this message, the moment you tell someone that they have privilege in any way, shape, or form(eg you have x advantage/privilege/whatever), it alienates a potential ally to a cause and can turn people off from addressing serious problems affecting people.


To recap: No, it's not my sex's fault that men are the targets of misandry, and no, it isn't men's fault that I experience misogyny, it is, in fact society and culture's fault and guess what? Society and culture is created by *gasp* men and women! Oh noes! The horrors! Instead of attacking someone because they have lady or gentleman parts, why not address society and culture? That makes sense to me. Address people's attitudes-man or woman-especially if they say something or do something sexist, misandrist or misogynist.

Originally posted on:
http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.c...n-planted.html