Pathological misogynist on a mission to explain how stupid women are

A remarkably lengthy comment recently failed to make it through moderation here at Hathor. I thought it might be fun to post it here and take it apart, but as I was researching some of its “points” I discovered – it’s already all over the web. Rather than post the content here and give him the attention I suspect he craves, I’ll just link to it in a forum.

Note how he gets ignored, because he’s bizarre and lecturing – not interacting with people. Then as people talk amongst themselves, he takes that as a direct response to him (it’s not) and responds in kind. This isn’t a case of poor social skills. This is someone with such a low emotional IQ he doesn’t even realize he needs social skills to engage in discussion. Given that he’s clearly a dedicated misogynist going to much trouble to twist facts and fiction to “mansplain” to the whole world how men are superior to women without having the slightest clue how to talk to people, he’s probably a narcissist who figures everyone should just go wide-eyed at his brilliance the moment they come in contact with his words.

Did I mention he’s a plagiarist? Yeah. The comment appears to be cobbled together verbatim from a number of sources, like this one by Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve” attempting to defend his debunked work (see here and here, too). Even Murray acknowledges the question of nature v. nurture in passing (“The question is whether the social and legal exclusion of women is a sufficient explanation for this situation, or whether sex-specific characteristics are also at work”) before devolving into a blithering of old data (since contradicted) colored with his opinions stated as fact (students are more likely to hear about Curie than Einstein? Really?). Another source for this commenter (the stuff about how men improved on childbearing) is this essay, which is also crap.

It’s almost but not quite amusing to receive a lecture on my gender’s inherent mental inferiority from someone who has the intellect of a copy machine.

He also left the comment here, prompting the author to quote it in a comment herself for discussion. Another commenter responds: “He’s stopped by our blog in the past to “correct” us. Don’t lose any sleep over it. He’s a lune!” The author then sends his comment to some classical radio stations for their thoughts. One of the responses: “Mr. Petrella’s email is, to be kind, lacking in intellectual rigor. I think if you survey our playlist on any given day, you’ll see that we feature a broad range of women as instrumentalists, singers, composers and conductors. It would take a lot of effort not to.”

We got the comment in response to If anything makes women hate men, it’s not feminism: it’s patriarchy, an article which explains how it’s not feminism that pits women against men, it’s patriarchy. We actually have articles where his, uh, response might have seemed almost relevant, but those aren’t the ones he chose. Maybe he’s so busy being superior at abstract reasoning that plain concrete rationality confuses him.

I guess this means we’re doing our job, fellow e-equality activists.


  1. The Other Patrick says

    12. Including the title of his post, it took me 12 words to roll my eyes. That’s pretty good for something with whole sentences.

  2. Ray says

    …so I realize that it’s a different type of abstract reasoning, but really? “there have been many women of genius in literature and the performing arts, areas which have the least requirement for abstract reasoning)!” Really?!

    and, as always, the “women are better at discerning how people feel” argument. If you use that reasoning, you would deduce that I am not a woman.

  3. says

    The Other Patrick, that was about where the nausea kicked in for me, too.

    Ray, I was a little surprised that, according to this jackass, there have been lots of genius women in performing arts, but by implication, this doesn’t include a single female singer-songwriter. It takes some mental Twister moves to make sense of that one. I mean, from Wikipedia:

    Mitchell’s work is highly respected both by critics and fellow musicians. Rolling Stone magazine called her “one of the greatest songwriters ever,”[6] while Allmusic said, “When the dust settles, Joni Mitchell may stand as the most important and influential female recording artist of the late 20th century.”[7]

    And that’s just the first person who sprung to mind, you know?

    • Casey says

      It’s pretty rage-inducing that to this guy, being a female musical performer seems to automatically imply you’re merely a meat-puppet being controlled by a Svengali and you don’t compose your own music. GUH-BWAH~!?

  4. Robin says

    I couldn’t get past the first couple of paragraphs before I had to close the tab lest I punch my monitor. I really should have known better than to even read that far, since the title of his post wasn’t even grammatically correct.

    How is it that these misguided opinions still exist? Kudos to the denizens of that forum for ignoring that troll. I’m not sure if I could have done the same if it was one of the sites I frequent. To quote xkcd, “Someone is wrong on the internet!”

  5. Karakuri says

    It’s disturbing how these views are often expressed in the news, and everyone just nods along in agreement. I have an RSS feed on my desktop of MSNBC news, which is the default feed you get, and pretty much every article related to women is written by a man and promotes the usual opinions that gender differences are genetic, feminism makes women “try too hard”, etc. There was one article recently about women whose husbands are too helpful losing self-esteem (a valid topic, but the article really just seems to be concluding that women naturally feel the need to do household duties). And the millions of readers just eat this stuff up, if you look at the discussion forums the majority of posters are in agreement with those opinions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *