Kirsty Johnston’s article directed at ‘toxic men’ was published by the NZ Herald but they’re unlikely to publish even a letter to the editor with a similar reference to women or any other group. Only for men is it considered acceptable to publish such hate speech against them.

Ms Johnston’s vicious diatribe commenced with outlining her demeaning view of a man who offered to buy her and her female friend a drink in a bar. She saw his generous attempt to befriend them as somehow unacceptable. One cannot rely on her honesty concerning the alleged verbatim comments she attributed to the man. The way he made his offer may well have been more tentative and respectful than how she recounts it. Regardless, it was nothing more or less than a friendly offer to buy them a drink.

Ms Johnston must have forgotten that bars are places where people tend to socialize and seek to meet others. She seemed to give no thought to the fact that men are still expected to initiate communications if they want to meet women. If this man or almost any man does not attempt to initiate contact he can expect to spend the evening sitting alone and lonely.

Ms Johnston didn’t seem to possess enough human decency to recognize the risk of rejection or humiliation this man took in reaching out for their friendship. If she had, she might have replied with some caring, like “Thanks for your kind offer but we don’t want any company right now”. Instead, she chose to lie to him. Nice.

Even if Ms Johnston had been honourable enough to tell a fuller truth this would at least have provided the man with clear understanding and would likely have avoided the subsequent developments she complains about. For example, she could have said “Thanks but you’re not someone we’re interested in meeting.” Or “If you were really sexy or a celebrity then we would be flattered but since you’re not please don’t bother us again”.

The man respectfully believed her explanation for refusing his offer (“We’re driving”), and he offered a soft drink instead. What a toxic bastard, huh?

In her article Ms Johnston then stereotyped men with the claim that most would oblige her to participate in ‘inane conversation’. Yeah right, men force women to engage in inane conversation.

Ms Johnston then went to the bar to buy another drink and claimed she could feel his eyes on her back. Actually Ms Johnston, no matter how psychic you might think you are there is no sensor on your back that can do that. He may or may not have looked at you going to the bar but what you were feeling was in your own imagination, most likely based on guilt, knowing you had lied to him and you were now demonstrating your dishonesty for him to see.

Ms Johnston claimed she mentioned ‘the situation’ to the barman. What situation? A man offered to buy them drinks, she refused (dishonestly, but she wouldn’t have mentioned that to the barman), the man accepted her decision and she subsequently went to the bar. Nothing else had happened and there was no evidence of any ‘situation’ other than in her mind. The only situation her mind may have been creating will have resulted from guilt and fear associated with subjecting someone to dishonesty then blatant disrespect.

Ms Johnston claimed the barman replied that “refusing a drink and then buying your own sent a clear message”. What poppycock! It’s not a clear message at all but instead is likely to cause confusion and lead the other person to make up explanations. Of course, it may well be that the barman said no such thing and this lying woman’s claim was simply a way of trying to justify herself.

In the article she then recounted second hand the alleged experience of her friend, that the man had come face-to-face with her and said that Ms Johnston had lied. Yes, if you lie to someone then demonstrate that in the person’s presence shortly thereafter, that person may well feel hurt and annoyed; surprise, surprise. And if you do so in a venue for alcohol consumption, the person may well be somewhat less inhibited than usual in expressing those feelings. Wonder of wonders!

Nevertheless, the man made no threats, committed no assault or other crime, simply sought to communicate his awareness that he had been lied to and that he was unhappy about that. At least the friend then told him the truth, but from Ms Johnston’s description this was done with further rudeness and no hint of apology or acknowledgement that it would be normal to feel humiliated and annoyed after being fobbed off with a lie.

The story has it that on the way out the man stopped at their table and said “You are the f***ing rudest women”. If so, he was right and they then further confirmed it by hostile efforts to provoke him. Ms Johnston gave him the finger and her friend goaded him by asking if he wanted to hit them. He had made no threat of violence at all so this suggestion was simply offensive stereotyping.

So here’s a man who experienced really normal, predictable feelings in response to being lied to and humiliated, and who expressed his feelings responsibly without violence. But even that’s unacceptable to bitch feminists. The only permissible behaviour from men is to accept quietly any and all bullshit that women subject them to.

Ms Johnston said she then felt fearful that the man might be waiting outside for them. To do what? He had made no threat of violence and had simply said said truths to them. Apparently, he looked in the window again some time later and “bar staff went to chase him off” but he had already gone. What the hell? He walked presumably on a public footpath after spending some time elsewhere, and looked in the window of that bar on the way past. He probably still felt annoyed about being lied to and insulted and he may have sought to ascertain the full extent of Ms Johnston’s dishonesty given that she was still there drinking some time later. How dare these unpleasant women presume to be able to chase off someone behaving in perfectly legitimate fashion having shown no sign or threat otherwise?

Ms Johnston then said she thought her 10-minute walk home would have been too dangerous. This was clearly made up in her own victim mentality because there had been no evidence to support it.

Next day she was fuming, furious that she was ‘forced’ into the situation of being a damsel in distress, and that she and women generally were still suffering due to ‘unbridled male entitlement’. She also thought it acceptable to suggest all manner of terrible behaviour on the part of this man she did not know.

Well Ms Johnston, nobody forced you into anything. The evening’s developments resulted directly from your own choices, behaviour and attitude. If you had shown some honesty and decency from the outset that would most likely have been the end of the matter. If you or your friend had shown any hint of apology for lying to him that would probably have been the end of the matter. However, when you show the disrespect of lying to someone then demonstrate this lie in that person’s presence, you can predict the person will feel hurt, confused and offended and may seek to convey those feelings to you. If you then give someone the finger and imply they are violent when they have shown no such thing, you may find yourself feeling a bit worried about the person’s possible responses.

The only ‘unbridled entitlement’ in this scenario was your belief Ms Johnston that you should be entitled to treat men with dishonesty and disrespect without any right of reply for them. So unbridled that you think you can parade your revolting behaviour and attitudes via a newspaper and expect that everyone will support you.

Toxic feminists, please just STOP. Men are tired of your nonsense.