As usual, I don’t know what the fuck Scott is trying to say here. One would assume that he is either trying to make fun of people who call him names or trying to say that people shouldn’t call hi-….er…other people names, but in a funny way.
But for some reason he’s decided that the insult “misogynistic douche” is, in and of itself, snark worthy. (Which, it kinda is, but not for the reasons he goes into.) So he asks, "What would a misogynistic douche look like?"
A “misogynistic douche” would look like, well, a douche. Seeing as how the premise of the douche is that the most female of female parts is so dirty that one not only needs to clean it out regularly*, but that sometimes it needs to be cleaned out with bleach. (Yes, bleach.)
In case this is news to anyone (other than Scott), here is the PSA: douching is NOT a Good Idea. (Unless your doctor prescribes it.) It tends to cause problems rather than prevent them because it messes up your body's natural defenses. Even when all you use is water. It is even thought that douching may increase the risk of having an ectopic pregnancy and all sorts of other nasty stuff.
The question should not be "what do we need to put in douches to make them misogynistic?" , but rather, "why was using water not misogynistic enough?" and "What in god’s green earth moved Lysol to advertise (once upon a time) as a feminine hygene product?" And "why the fuck would anyone write a post contemplating ways to make douches more misogynistic than they are?"
The insult “misogynistic douche” is a bit redundant, and I can see making fun of it for that reason. But otherwise….as usual, Scott rants just make me very, very glad that I never have to deal with him in person.
*Yes, we all bathe regularly. We do not, however, all have enemas regularly. Or, in general, at all - at least not outside of non-mainstream porn or the doctor's office.
