He says:

> But perhaps I can summarize my viewpoint so you can understand why I’m such a misogynist asshole douche bag. Here’s my view in brief:

> You can’t expect to have a rational discussion on any topic that has an emotional charge. Emotion pushes out reason. That is true for all humans, including children, men, women, and people in every range of mental ability. The path of least resistance is to walk away from that sort of fight. Men generally prefer the path of least resistance. The exception is when men irrationally debate with other men. That’s a type of sport. No one expects opinions to be changed as a result.

I would not normally try to summarize a long complex explanation, but I would think that this section would also be crucial to include in any summary:

> First, some background. A few weeks ago I asked readers of this blog to suggest a topic they would like to see me write about. The topic that got the most up votes, by a landslide, was something called Men’s Rights. Obviously the fix was in. Activists had mobilized their minions to trick me into giving their cause some free publicity. In retrospect, the Men’s Rights activists probably should have done some homework on me before hatching this scheme.

> As you can see, I thought it would be funny to embrace the Men’s Rights viewpoint in the beginning of the piece and get those guys all lathered up before dismissing their entire membership as a “bunch of pussies.”

Taken at face value, that argument is nonsense. If you do that, the beginning of the piece serves as propagation of MRA women are inferior viepoint. And is treated as such.

The latter insults "bunch of pussies" does not cancel the beginning. It does not correct what you wrote about women either. It just makes women collateral damage in you strughle for dominance against MRA.

> […] the beginning of the piece serves as […]

You mean, if you take a piece of it out of context, and remove the text following it, it can serve to mean something completely different than what was intended? My point exactly.

Also, from the same original text, Adams writes:

> I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group.

So he’s explicitly and clearly saying that he’s not saying that women are “like children or mentally handicapped”, just so that nobody gets him wrong. But then, of course, everybody takes the first quote, cuts it out of context, removes the clarification, and parades it around the internet like a hideous rallying flag.

I reacted to your quote:

> As you can see, I thought it would be funny to embrace the Men’s Rights viewpoint in the beginning of the piece and get those guys all lathered up before dismissing their entire membership as a “bunch of pussies.”