the header image

12 Ways to Spot a Misogynist – a review of a method –

by Nomen Est Omen 0 Comments

Dr Brogaard, a Professor and the Director of the Brogaard Lab for Multisensory Research at the University of Miami, has written books and articles that in a more or less scientific way, with a purpose to appeal more or less to the masses, delve into and explore the areas of her expertise like perception, synesthesia, blindsight, consciousness, neuro-psychiatry and emotions. Love, most likely with the idea to make exploration of the phenomenon more comprehensible to the said masses, Dr Brogaard approaches and analyses in a much more down-to-earth way.

Dr Brogaard

Dr Brogaard

In the article, published in Psychology Today on 18 February 2015, she even decides to make the title look really, really cheap, “12 Ways to Spot a Misogynist”. Great!

With all due respect, in my opinion, the title doesn’t seem much different from, say, “15 Celebrities that had their Liposuction Job Turn Nasty“, or similar. What that means is that the audience that would normally enjoy reading about those beauties turned ugly by daring to challenge nature, will be the same candidates to read Dr Brogaard’s article. What does that mean? Well, it means too lightweight an approach for an actually very serious and highly sensitive topic.

How many traits make him a misogynist? One, two, five?

How many traits make him a misogynist? One, two,  five?

It is really not scientific to limit anything to a number and leave it there for the average public to digest a low-fat, guilt-free meal and instantly feel empowered. I know, Dr Brogaard certainly did not mean it like that. I know, and she knows that the topic is far more complex, but she probably wanted to make it more palatable for the common folks, so what she did, she put it in the same category as those celebrity photos, not realising that by doing so, by making it simple for women to identify misogyny using a practical, anyone-can-do-it method, she is actually creating fertile conditions for easy and no-fuss growth of misandry. Yes, that is right. Any woman can recognise one or the other trait, listed in the article, in her (potential) man; any woman can do it. Even better, any man can do the same about the other man. It is so simple! Easy! Anyone can do it! Stating, in addition, that men may not be aware of demonstrating those traits does little for their good image.

Now, if that indicates that all men might be misogynists, in one way or another, I don’t think we have a problem. Why? Well, if something is in the same basket as, say, all men have penises, or all women have uteruses, I mean, that must be natural then. What is natural, we do not change, we shouldn’t even try. There is a natural reason for it. The fact we may not have a clue why something exists, does not make our valid argument to fight it, or get rid of it. On the other hand, and I believe somehow, Dr Brogaard will agree with me on that, if not all men are misogynists, then we can look into the pattern, why, how, when it started, what caused it, etc., but, it is not safe to leave it to every woman to just sit down and tick one or more of those 12 traits, and believe that Dr Brogaard has actually helped her. In reality, she has only made it worse for the woman because once that woman “confirms”, using Dr Brogaard’s list, that her man is definitely a misogynist, she instantly needs professional help to guide her before she ruins her relationship in one go. Is Dr Brogaard going to be there to help that woman? Of course not. No need to elaborate on that, I believe.

In a feminist-agenda-driven society, as we have it at the moment, it is more than ever biologically important for both sexes not to turn against each other. However, statistics e.g. around 30% of American males do not want to marry American women (that information and much more is freely available on the Internet from reputable sources) and similar, does tell us something. Yes, it can tell us that men are jerks and are not happy with anything. Your choice is, of course, to keep believing that. However, it could also tell us that women are more complicated and harder to satisfy, they impose more conditions and/or restrictions (I do not count sex here, because it seems that an average


She likes sex.

American woman really, really likes sex very much), and men simply steer away. Also, have you perhaps, by any chance, thought that that insatiable craving for sex by average, free, independent American women in particular, could actually be one of the reasons why men will date them, oh yes, but do not find it reasonable or appealing to commit to a relationships with them? There are 3 simple, easily recognizable traits of “the type”:

  1. she likes sex.
  2. she changes partners because men are misogynists.
  3. she likes sex.

Beautiful Russian woman.

American and increasingly Western-European women might want, at some point, to look at Eastern-European, and even Asian women that Western men are starting to opt for as candidates for a good marriage. Those women, for some reason, are more concerned about their own chastity (Gee, how dare I even use the word, but they really are!). Sadly, that is changing, too (under whose influence, I wonder), but I honestly hope that, in the long run, unique and original local cultures as well as social structures of Eastern Europe, Slavic nations in particular, will prove stubborn enough and resist the infection that is currently trying to spread the 3rd wave feminism everywhere it can. I hope the true and fascinating nature of Eastern-European women will prevail and doing so stay true to its biologically driven instincts.

I admit, I have side-tracked here a bit, but with good intentions. I think it is important that we understand the inevitable interdependence of men and women, and even more acutely the reign of choice. The misinterpretation of patriarchy may have everything to do with the confusion that reigns at the moment, but I will come back to that at some stage in the near future.


Beautiful Croatian woman.

A misogynist. A woman-hater. A woman-user, but still a woman-hater. It is interesting how women give advice to each other regarding the sad treatment each of them received by her “misogynistic worse half”, and they show no mercy towards him, a misogynist. Let’s say, for an argument’s sake that, indeed, a woman shouldn’t stay with a violent and abusive man. However, what is, or who is really a misogynist?

If we accept the premise, and there is certainly ample biological evidence to support it, that men and women are naturally directed towards each other, and we also know that a disruption of that route causes serious demographic, cultural and social problems, than it is not hard to accept another premise, that mutual hatred cannot be a sustainable option.

From that, we can easily come to a conclusion that true hatred, either misogyny or misandry for that matter, is not naturally established as a result of a healthy development of an individual.

If that is so, then any kind of hatred, to simplify the issue, can come from three possible sources, all of which have been exerted, one way or another, over an individual for a prolonged period of time (e.g. their whole life):

  1. Mental health problems of genetic nature,
  2. Mental conditioning processes applied, consciously or subconsciously, by family members, members of a community, environment, etc.,
  3. Mental conditioning on a grand scale (very much consciously, of course), e.g. media, government, et al. developing a perception of hatred between sexes as something natural, but they omit to mention that sources of that information are more than dubious, let alone reputable researches. That, then, gives them free hands to exploit new, uncomfortable experiences that people encounter as a result of that previously applied mental conditioning.

Elliot Roger – the Great Misogynist with Asperger Syndrome

At this point, though, it is extremely important to emphasise that we must not confuse a validly disturbed man by an over-zealous and corrupt feminist who, if not pushing a misogyny agenda, has pretty much nothing else to do, with an outright misogynist, who in turn has become that as a result of one of the above three influences.

The biological imperative offers an option that a woman looks for a “better” man, and rightly so. A truly developed misogynist would be a man with a psychological problem, there is no question about that, so it is wise that she abandons that situation and looks for a better one. The problem is that some points raised in the article describe nothing more than a true, healthy and confident man, whose behaviour can be interpreted as something devious by a thoroughly brainwashed, feminism-dedicated woman. At that point, it boils down that if a man is confident, charming and charismatic, showing that he prefers to be in control of a situation, he is most likely a misogynist. Dr Brogaard’s “12 Ways…” will definitely get you there.

Internet abounds with pages like Dr Brogaard’s one, books and other sources that suggest to women countless ways how to spot a relationship traitor, a controlling freak, a selfish bastard, how to avoid being dragged into choices they don’t really want to make, how to preserve and protect their independence, and all that while demographic birth rate numbers in Western countries are plummeting. How is that related, you ask? Well…. Do I really have to explain?

Of course, her article finishes with a very gloomy prediction… “…again and again.”

With articles like Dr Brogaard’s, we’re, sure as hell, going to create a plenty of misandrist out there, completely opposite of what we desperately need. And with so many other authors writing about men not being “good for women” , it is almost guaranteed.

The nonsense reigns. We need reason back in the saddle.

Nomen Est Omen