FeminismRandom AsidesSkepticism

Bad Chart Thursday: Not Misogyny

This post is not about misogyny. This post is not about Elliot Rodger.

Those sentences I just wrote? They also are not about misogyny or Elliot Rodger. If you think they are, then you are claiming they do not contain the words “this” or “post” or “not” or “about.” You can’t have it both ways, people.

Here’s a list of what I would like to cover in today’s Bad Chart Thursday:

  1. Misogyny
  2. Misogyny
  3. Misogyny
  4. Misogyny
  5. Men’s footwear choices
  6. Misogyny
  7. Misogyny
  8. Misogyny
  9. Misogyny
  10. Misogyny
  11. Misogyny

As you can see, the chart will have nothing to do with misogyny. Obviously, interpreting my list that way completely ignores men’s footwear choices. It’s almost as if you believe men do not have the right to choose what they wear on their feet. Do you hate men that much? Do you hate shoes?

Feminists would have you believe otherwise about that list–the same feminists who seem to think Rodger’s horrific actions were motivated by misogyny simply because the bulk of his words, in writing and in videos, expressed his hatred of women and his hatred of men in relation to his hatred of women.

As #NotAllMen has clearly shown, however, all it takes is one man to prove that misogyny doesn’t exist. The above paragraph not only contains the word “men,” it also contains the name of a man, clearly showing that misogyny doesn’t exist in that paragraph.

This post is not about misogyny.

Feminists may even claim Occam’s razor when looking at Rodger’s motivation, that the repeatedly stated motivation in his own words is likely to actually be his motivation, but everyone knows feminists don’t shave and probably don’t even know what a razor is.

Full-disclosure: I have diagnosed mental illnesses. This demonstrates even further that this post is not about misogyny, unless you’re a feminist who looks at this post and sees nothing but “misogyny” all throughout it. Even if you do, you are clearly putting your agenda above my mental health. In fact, maybe my OCD compels me to use the word “misogyny” a certain number of times. Just speculating that this may in fact be the case only further proves how irrelevant misogyny really is to this post and how insensitive you are to those who struggle with mental illness if you even discuss misogyny. Doing so is exactly the same as completely dismissing people with mental illness.

To prove my point and bring us back to the REAL topic of this post (hint: not misogyny), I present a chart demonstrating what I stated at the outset based on the number of times “misogyny,” “men” or “man,” and “mental illness” show up in this post to this point.



A feminist might try to argue that the evidence shows pretty strongly that this post is about misogyny. But as I’ve pointed out above, even when the misogyny is off the charts, all it takes is one man or mental illness speculation to disprove it.

Melanie Mallon

Melanie is a freelance editor and writer living in a small town outside Minneapolis with her husband, two kids, dog, and two cats. When not making fun of bad charts or running the Uncensorship Project, she spends her time wrangling commas, making colon jokes, and putting out random dumpster fires. You can find her on Twitter as @MelMall, on Facebook, and on Instagram.

Related Articles


    1. Until we become feminists, at which point we swear an oath against shaving, pledge our undying hatred of all men, and gather weekly for straw crafts.

    1. Well, if we discount all discussion of misogyny and Elliot Rodger, as we should, I’m pretty sure this entire post is about men’s footwear choices.

      I did leave it out of the chart, though, didn’t I? I think I must have shied away from that topic because of its sheer emotional power.

      Perhaps I will do a post: “What about the MENZ . . . footwear?”

    1. Thanks, Jon. If only versions of these arguments weren’t being made in earnest elsewhere.

  1. And those stupid-looking toe shoes, better get them while you can, they are soon to join Sketchers Shape Ups, Jellies, and Earth Shoes in the trash heap of history.

      1. Some seven years ago, Nike had a shoe just for some unique anatomical features of Indians’ feet as a sort of greenwashing for, you know, the whole sweatshop thing, and I’m skeptical of that.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button