How to spot a misogynist*


May 1, 2012 – 8:42AM

Clementine FordClementine Ford

Follow @twitter

*By the five classic lies they tell


"If you’re not trained in the spotting of smug, self-satisfied misogynists, you might not know the general thrust of their shtick."

When you’re a feminist, you get used to misogynists trying to challenge the necessity of your politics. “Feminism’s finished! Women are equal now and there’s no use for all the hairy arm-pitted rubbish! Quit your yapping! Embrace your curves!”

But misogynist isn’t a very fashionable kind of word – I mean, no one saunters into a room proudly pronouncing, ‘My name’s Don and I’m a misogynist!’, unless it’s the latest Charter Meeting of Online Trolls Monthly, or Channel Nine. So because people know it’s not really kosher to be a codified turd, they try and hide their misogynist views under the guise of legitimate arguments.

If you’re not trained in the spotting of smug, self-satisfied misogynists, you might not know the general thrust of their shtick. Luckily for you, I’ve become somewhat of an expert in the field since they all started following me on Twitter. So to help novices and outsiders, I’ve taken the following five popular misogynist arguments and parsed them into some kind of legible (if not logical) format for your benefit.

1. If you want to see real oppression, go to the Middle East.

The problems here are threefold. First, it implies women in the west should be grateful for the benevolence of their natural overlords. Who cares if 1 in 3 of you will experience sexual assault in your lifetime, while also enjoying the privilege of lower pay than your male counterparts and the symbolic annihilation of yourselves in literature and film? In case you didn’t know, women in Afghanistan are being stoned to death. So why don’t you just go ahead and submit your complaint to the STFU file known as my PENIS?

Second is the accusatory tone. Now, I’m no statistician, but I’d estimate that 98.76% of people outraged over feminism’s ‘failure’ to ‘protect’ their brown sisters from the oppression of their Muslim Male Masters (because let’s not forget, this is about racism too) are doing exactly zero to agitate for women’s liberation anywhere, let alone in the Middle East. But even though they hate feminism and all who dwell therein, they still think they know how to do it better than you do. This is because misogynists see themselves as Upper Management – which is precisely why we need to get more women into executive roles.

Finally, liberation and change aren’t beholden to hierarchies of need. It’s possible to seek the liberation of oppressed groups everywhere, at the same time! Asking comparatively privileged women (many of whom also live in the Middle East – it is not a vacuum) to be satisfied with ‘good enough’ just reinforces the patriarchal hierarchy of power that needs to be dismantled.

Besides, I don’t hear anyone accusing working families of selfishness for complaining about their rising electricity bills just because some slum dwellers in India don’t even HAVE working Playstations.

2. How can women expect us to respect them when they won’t respect themselves?

When Sheik Al-Hilali compared scantily clad women to uncovered meat, we were rightly outraged. In Australia, we yelled, we don’t treat women like that! Except that we do. We use clothing and behaviour to provide excuses for sexist everyday, be they rapists or simply the kind of people who think a woman’s right to be afforded a basic level of dignity is contingent upon how much of her skin she’s revealing. The fact that we criticise other cultures for it doesn’t make us champions of women – it makes us both sexist AND racist.

We’re not protecting women – we’re protecting our property. Asking women to respect themselves in order to ‘earn’ the right to be treated like a human being is total horse-shit. But suggesting that you have the right to treat her exactly as you please because she didn’t adhere to your archaic views of feminine propriety is misogyny, plain and simple.

3. Stop criticising domestic servitude! Some women are proud to look after their families.

This one’s a misogynist favourite, especially notable for the fact it’s the only time you’ll find them advocating for women’s rights in the workplace. Specifically, a woman’s right to iron her husband’s work shirts instead of her own. Misogynists who use this argument like to wax lyrical about things like choice, pride and sacrificial love. But what they’re really defending is their belief that women belong in the home, performing dull domestic tasks for the primary benefit of everyone other than themselves (and mainly their husband). Despite the fact that these dudes wouldn’t devote even an tenth of their lives to it themselves, they’re invested in outwardly maintaining the nobility of unpaid domestic work – because ascribing false honour to drudgery is how you reinforce invisible social power.

The thing is, women can choose those things if they want to. There’s nothing more tedious than the status quo trying to pit stay-at-homes against workforce broads. But the fact is, these people aren’t advocating for or defending a range of choices. How do I know that? Because if they were, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

4. It’s a science thing

“Look, men and women are built differently. It’s biological. Men are more visual, women are more emotional. That’s why more men are in executive roles. It’s about merit. If women were better, they wouldn’t be so crap. I didn’t make the rules.”

So goes the argument. Basically, it’s the kind of pop science spouted by the readers of such noted academic journals as NW Magazine and the Herald Sun. Whenever you hear someone say, ‘women are just better at washing up’ or ‘men are just better at being the leader of the free world’, ask yourself this: would that sentence be as benign if we replaced gender with race? Would we stand by, nodding sagely as mainstream pundits discussed how white people are just better at empathy than black folk? I sure hope not.

So why is it okay to say that women aren’t as good at stuff ‘because biology’? The biology argument is a Trojan horse that does nothing but sneak sexist propaganda into the castle. The only biological difference between a man and a woman is the difference of a Y chromosome – and even then, there’s a bit of wiggle room.

5. Men are oppressed too, therefore women aren’t! Or something.

“If feminists really cared about equality, they’d be addressing all the inequality that faces men. Like, why do feminists only care about breast cancer and not prostate cancer? Why aren’t feminists advocating for single dads? Why won’t women sleep with me when I’m a really nice guy and I’ve made a particular effort to be nice to them, particularly? Until feminism can answer that, I’m afraid I don’t really see it as being legitimate.”

This is the last bastion of the misogynist’s argument – their self fancying checkmate, if you will. What these people are basically saying is that, despite the overwhelming evidence of entrenched sexual, physical and ideological oppression of women, the only way feminism can really be fair is if it first identifies and solves all of the ways in which the patriarchy also oppresses men.

To be more specific, women who agitate for their own liberation are only allowed to do so once they’ve fixed all the things that make men sad, thus making them stronger and even more powerful.

There are probably a million ways I could tear this argument apart, but I think this says it better than I ever could.


To paraphrase the great Sarah Connor, a bitchin’ kick ass broad who saved humanity from blistering annihilation at the hands of the Terminators: if a stick figure, an animation, can reject the stupidity of misogynist rhetoric…maybe we can too.

Go forth and rebut, my friends.


5 thoughts on “How to spot a misogynist*

  1. On point #5, I’m not sure its a completely fair assessment.

    To be a feminist, (and identify ones self as a feminist) I’d presume you’d need to uphold feminist attributes. i.e. Equality of sex.

    This ‘to me’ would suggest, utilitarian attitude towards issues related to health.
    And therefore, address the greatest issues of health regardless of gender equally.

    I agree its any person of any genders prerogative to favour issues which affect their gender as priority (and i don’t blame them); however I’m dubious that this is actually feminism.

    It seems quite a reasonable assessment (for someone) to query the legitimacy of a self proclaimed ‘feminist’ who seeks equal custody rights for women, rather than an system which offers optimal equality to all.

    Sexism we often forget is a two way street, in which unfortunately the women of history have received a particularly raw deal.

    Its no surprise some men are annoyed that their issues are not are not being addressed, even if its because they’re too lazy to do anything about it… Historically, many men have been taught that people who complain about such stuff are just wingers.

    I’d caution the projectional view: “therefore women aren’t! Or something”.

    • I think it makes sense in a way. I would be a feminist in that I want equal (not superior) rights to men, both legally and socially. I do personally have certain causes that relate to men that I would champion – particularly equality in parental rights. But, that aside, when you’re looking at a section of society that is somewhat oppressed or poorly treated, I don’t think the onus is on them to champion the rights of those who are largely responsible for the original oppression, generally speaking.

      It would be kind of like saying Nelson Mandela should have also campaigned for the rights of groups of underprivileged white people in South Africa. While it is certainly a worthy cause, the anti-apartheid message was understandably his focus, and it was necessary for him to focus his energy on that.

      Similarly, it is enough of a big effort to champion equality for women without having to carry the baton for men as well. And in the reverse, I wouldn’t think a male campaigning for parental rights for fathers should be expected to also start campaigning against domestic violence to even the score.

      I think that’s the kind of sentiment behind what she’s saying. Yes, men do have their own issues and it’s not that feminists are not sympathetic to those or that they even wouldn’t agree with a whole lot of them, but it’s not reasonable to say that they *must* actively campaign for men’s causes as well or else their feminism is not legitimate.

  2. Hey Cara,

    Came back expecting to see some extreme left/right views but instead saw your well balanced views. – Thank-you.

    Personally, I don’t see the connection between equal rights for parents and domestic violence. Two separate issues, which any personal can find their own position.

    I guess, in equality a parent (male of female) interested in either topic, should emphasis equality in their pursuit rather than their personal interest . Thats pretty much my point.

    I don’t think I I said saying “women” should champion “mens” issues. I’m simply saying people should champion “people’s” issues.

    If you think its unfair, then try and make it far… like – If I’m beating you up, try and make the fighting stop. P.S I know more men who are beaten by their partners than vice/versa (again, doesn’t mean its a statistic).

    Men as a whole aren’t responsible for anything, unless you want to talk like genocide.
    Even if men are still beating, doesn’t make it right.

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s