Neal Boortz really has mastered the art of mansplaining in 140 characters.

There's often a lot of talk about the damage that unearned male privilege does to women. And that's an important topic that rightfully deserves the  bulk of the discourse. Still, this is a classic example of how male privilege does some terrible things to men. For instance, it teaches a lot of men that if they want something other than what women want, then it must be because the women are stupid bimbos. The possibility that a woman has a point of view worth considering or that you may have conflicting desires is just ignored in favor of wallowing in an unevidenced, if self-serving belief that your penis makes you smarter than half the human race.

Ironically, then, the sexist belief that men are inherently smarter than women serves to make men who believe it even stupider.

It hardly bears mentioning that there are easy to find reasons that women believe that there's a war on women. It's not because women are falling for fairy tales because of their silly lady brains. It's because a bunch of laws are being passed to restrict abortion access, conservatives are rapidly escalating anti-contraception rhetoric and attacks on contraception, and oh yeah, because Republicans are doing everything in their power to shut down even the most timid attempts to prevent pay discrimination against women. Even if you buy the hoary line that women's "choices" are the sole reason they make less than men---something that's painfully easy to disprove---the problem is there's still no reason to oppose Democratic legislation. Obama's executive orders and the Paycheck Fairness Act that Republicans shot down don't force women to make different choices or anything like that. All they do is require more transparency in salary practices. As I noted at XX Factor, "Indeed, if you're confident that women are making less because they deserve less, you should welcome a federal database that has experience, title, and gender data in it. After all, won't it just prove your point?"

It's hard not to conclude the opposition to transparency comes from a desire to discriminate without getting caught doing it. I can't see any other explanation. I see no reason to think women are stupid for finding that to be repulsive behavior.

So, Boortz has really two choices to pick from here:

1) Accept that there's mountains of real world reasons to believe sexism exists and is supported full-throatedly by the Republicans. Admit that you support Republicans because you are sexist yourself and honestly believe that our economic and health care policies should be shaped with the goal of punishing women for stepping outside of Victorian era gender norms.

2) Deny all the real world evidence of sexism. Deny that you are personally sexist by invoking a hoary misogynist stereotype about women being stupid and easy to manipulate, thereby proving yourself a delusional liar in one fell swoop.

In both cases, you come across as a sexist. But with #2, you come across as a sexist idiot. And yet, that's the preferred choice of pretty much all conservatives these days. Guess that's all you need when the only people you're trying to convince are yourselves.