Did you know that a person who hates men can be described as a misandrist, and the corresponding noun is misandry? But there are currently only 29 examples of misandrist in the Oxford English Corpus, while misogynist appears more than 1,500 times and 68 uses of misandry are overshadowed by over 2,000 examples of misogyny. Interesting as all of that is, it does not actually tell us that there are more misogynists than misandrists around today, only that one term is used far more than the other.

Lately the poor old downtrodden misogynists have been getting a bit of bad press, and it has got to a point now where just being called a misogynist is both a condemnation of your complete character and an incitement for all good people to hate you. That’s fairly extreme stuff lads and it surely begs a closer examination before society loses the complete run of itself.

Let’s start with the definitions. A misogynist is a “man” who hates women whereas a misandrist is defined as a “person” who hates men. That’s sexism right there straight away, isn’t it? So misogynists are exclusively male? Does that mean the transgender lads and lassies have no right to be misogynists? And where are the rights of all those women who hate women? Every group and category of person has an inalienable right to hate men and some would say, rightly so. But only real men have a right to hate women …… or do they? I sense a left-leaning pressure to introduce into law the official offense of misogyny with the attendant fines and jail terms attached. Where’s the equality in that when only men can be the guilty parties?

In such a weird situation you would then have to ask how guilt could be proven. Let’s say some ah, person, were to publicly accuse me of being a misogynist. Surely then they would have to prove beyond doubt in court that I hate women. In my defense I would cite my unquestioned love for my partner and daughter, my love for all of my four sisters and my continued love for my dear departed Mother too. In fact if I give it a little thought I could probably name another ten or twenty women I have loved in my life with relative ease. I could call witnesses to this as well.

But hate is such a strong word. It suggests an intense dislike whereas in my own experience I do admit to mild feelings of dislike for a few women I have encountered over the years. It has never amounted to an intense feeling of any kind and I’d have to wrack my brains to even remember any of them now. The reality is that from birth, I’ve been kind of pre-programed to like women in the main and for the special ones I’ve known and know, that has deepened into a love for them. Where other blokes are concerned, the pre-programing saw them as either competitors or fellow teammates.

I knew a bloke once who professed a hatred for all people and his thesis was that a dog will never judge you or let you down. So would that make him a misogynandrist or just a crank? My own simple thesis is to avoid the people I dislike and try to be with those I do like, regardless of sex or religion. However, if I were intemperate enough to declare in mixed company that I believe men are more suited to some jobs than others, I would be walking a tight rope. Were I to add though that men are simply better at some jobs than women, all hell would break loose and the misogynist word might get an airing. Never mind that the statement also implies that women are naturally better than men at other things.

My problem is though that absolute equality between the sexes must mean that both are exactly the same and God help us if that should ever happen. An insult that men regularly trade between themselves is, “Go away and fuck yourself,” but it would take on a whole new meaning if we were all exactly the same. The fact is though that we are not all exactly the same either physically of mentally. Our entitlements and opportunities are certainly not the same nor are our experiences and supports. There isn’t even equality among men if you take them in isolation and it was ever so.

Kevin Myers wrote a piece recently in the “Times,” and lost his job over it. Referring to the disparity in pay for presenters at the BBC he made reference to the female presenters lobbying for equal pay and I believe his real big sin was to point out that the sisters were careful to avoid lobbying for the female canteen staff to have they same pay as they were getting themselves. The lowly canteen women earn a fraction of what their glamourous female presenters take home. But it was the avalanche of accusations of misogyny aimed at Myers that did for him.

Today I read that, “The scheduling of controversial columnist Kevin Myers as a moderator at a talk on censorship in Limerick strikes as a provocative, calculated move by the organisers, a professor at the University of Limerick has said. “Apparently Prof Emeritus Paticia O’Connor, of sociology and social policy, (with a particular focus on gender), said she hopes that Mr Myers’ involvement in the upcoming debate “isn’t a call to legitimise the views of other unreconstructed misogynists.” Her words are an accusation rather than a proven fact but she smugly knows they are probably enough to condemn him without recourse.

University talks and debates are supposed to air both sides of any argument and are designed to stimulate thought and provoke opinions. But it may happen that the one simple accusation of misogyny, as leveled by Prof Emeritus Paticia O’Connor, will have the effect of excluding Myers, a man of undoubted talent and ability. If there is a single word in the english language that defines the stifling of debate, independent opinion and thought in society, it is the word fascist. So I ask, is Prof. O’Connor promoting fascism?

And that takes me nicely to Donald Trump who in this morning’s papers is being described as both a misogynist and a fascist. I doubt he is truly either to be honest, (he doesn’t think that deeply), but the mere accusation of it is enough in some quarters to justify calls for his impeachment. Donald’s sin was to have the temerity to suggest that as regards Charlottesville, there were faults on both sides. In Nazi Germany, if a commentator had suggested that the attack on Russia included faults on both sides, he wouldn’t have been around long. I hold no truck with the white supremacists but the answer to those guys is not to confront and provoke their worst elements. To do so, in their minds, is to prove to them they are right. They need help not condemnation and you could begin that process with a decent education if interviews with their some of numbers are anything to go by.

And as for Donald, he’s just a big bumbling nit-wit and his Presidency had less to do with support for him than a voters protest at what had gone before. He does not run the US anymore than Obama, Bush or Clinton did before him. Like them, he’s a helpless puppet whose strings are pulled by a secretive and deep government behind the scenes. What we don’t know is whether any of that lot are fascists or misogynists because we don’t even know who they are. But if the carefully manufactured fissures appearing in American Society today are any indication, then the secret government is both misogynist and fascist. The irony of that is that it is only courageous and talented journalists like Myers who might dare challenge about such a thing.

It is all fast becoming a big hysterical lie without foundation or common sense.