I don't think it is fair to suggest that misogyny is a default position of men. I think it is more fair to say something like this:

1) There are some lunatics who are men.

2) Male lunatics often seek out female targets of obsession.

3) Male lunatics with female obsessive targets often voice their lunacy in the form of sexual and violent threats

4) Women who participate in media that can foster false intimacy are particularly vulnerable to attracting the attention of male lunatics.

What I mean by false intimacy are primarily one way means of communication where it feels like a two way communication to the consumer. This includes blogs but also things like television shows and books where the author shares a lot of intimate details.

Stalking like this is of course horrifying and tragic. I don't think though that you can draw conclusions about all men from the actions of a few lunatics.

Would you like me to base my opinions about attractive women by basing everything I know on the statements of women I see on Fox News? I mean, if this is how we are gathering our data, I can draw tons of conclusions just on the work of Ann Coulter.

Let's just agree that lunatics are lunatics and the world would be better off without them. I don't think we need to generalize about the gender of the particular lunatic of the week.

surely you could have found a better word than a Valley Girl word.

And about misogyny...just turn the TV on any night of the week if you want to see more subtle signs of it.

Hillary is a bitch

Nancy Pelosi is a bitch

Barbara Boxer is a bitch

Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch

"This woman is full of shit - anyone who would cancel a gig based on what we've seen is a moron and a chickenshit.

She just needs a man to protect her, I guess..."

Are you the same "Man" who was ranting the other day about how European civilization was the root of all evil (that was quite literally your basic thesis)?

If so I called you out as a hateful racist then and now see evidence of a deep sexism too. I think you should move to Djbouti, Saudi Arabia or join up with a Bedouin tribe...their views would fit nicely with your own.

I just read Louis Dixon and "Tom Payne's" responses in that particular link. Mr. Payne is much older than I. Mr. Payne doesn't support having a prenuptial agreement and I wouldn't get married without one. I agree that most feminists are incapable of applying the same logic and standards to themselves as they do to men, but that is their problem and not mine. No, divorce is not equal, it typically favors women. No, relationships are not equaly, someone always contributes more someone always loves more. That is the nature of things. You rarely see women paying alimony, even when the law provides for it but you always see them complaining about it if they see a woman who must. Marriages to career women fail at a much higher rate than those to women who are not career oriented. Most men, who have any means, don't marry career women and don't want to raise latchkey children. Sorry to burst your bubble. That is the way it is. Oh, and the woman who is the subject of this letter is fabricating many of her claims. PS: I love women, but know that marriage is overrated. Pass.

to be President.

Some jerk posted what he claims to be her home address and social security number in the "comments" section of her last blog post, along with more mysogynistic, sick, threatening material.

I hope they lock up whoever posted those things. You'd have to be a really disturbed individual to think that posts like that are ok.

I already knew most of your thoughts on this topic, and even if I hadn't, you wouldn't be bursting any purported bubble of mine.

What I find interesting, though, is that you (whatever this BS persona is, since you won't own up to it) on one hand don't like gold-digging who will make you pay alimony if you divorce them, but on the other hand don't want to marry a career woman either (to whom you wouldn't be paying alimony upon divorce). That seems to be a contradition to me.

So you don't want to get married. Fine, good for you. What I don't understand is why you try to speak for all men, instead of just for yourself.

Yes Victoria, this is the same Man from that thread and he posts ignorant generalizations on many threads. Basically he seems to have a problem with everyone that's not white all-American male (he even hates Canadians). If you're looking for intellectual stimulation this is not the poster to be bantering back and forth with but if you're into strange humor some of his generalizations are laughable.

Acquire a nine millimeter Glock.

Learn to use it.

Take video of you blowing heart out of target on the range.

Post video prominently on website.

I've been threatened several times online since I post on mostly political sites and I take glee in rubbing right winger's noses in their own ignorance.

I always invite the threatener on over and then casually remark that my neighborhood is heavily armed and my redneck neighbors are all friends of mine (both true).

Never had anyone come back at me after that.

My two years in the Corps taught me that the best defense is an overwhelming offense.

Alimony is utter bullshit. I thought women were equal? So why would they need alimony. If I were married, then divorced and then ordered to pay alimony----I wouldn't, ever. Sorry, if you are an adult then you are responsible for yourself and why pay rent on something you are f*cking anyway when you are divorced? Alimony is a reward of utter incompetence and an ability to be accountable. Again, I love women and I love equality. I love accountability, responsibility and liability also. Live with it. If you talk the talk, then fucking walk the walk. Open your own doors, buy your own dinners (or, at least pay 1/2), pay 1/2 the bills, etc. This is equality. If you are already doing that, you are equal. If you are not, you are not. Simple.