One can classify men in many ways. I'm going to do that according to some definitions for 'woman'.

Type 1: Retarded amoeba
"A woman is the useless skin around the vagina."

This kind of man is a lame excuse for a human being, and is sadly a waste of precious oxygen and a contributor to global warming. My defintion would be: Useless skin, cause their dick is not worth mentioning.

Type 2: Ignorant Asshole
"Women are only good in the kitchen and bedroom."

Type 2 is another unfortunate specimen of mankind. This kind of man is not even good in these two sectors, cause he can't even make toast without burning them and his unfortunate wife sleeps as he has sex with her.

Type 3: Normal Homo Sapiens
"Woman are equal to men in intelligence, and should be regarded as equals."

Type 3 is the only kind worth calling 'man'. This is the normal kind, and the world would be a better place if there were more.

Someone who is obsessed with women making them sandwiches.

A person with two heads.

look under pervert

PERV!

A derogatory term for someone who is being unfair, stupid, idiotic, asshole-like, monstrous etc...
Man can refer to both males and females.

A male human (?) who comes to UD to write "a woman must obey the three C's: Cooking, Cleaning, Sucking"* but still gets VERY upset when you call them primordial beasts, porn-crazed cavemen and uncivilized Neanderthals.

His usual response is to go to the woman section and write "useless skin around the vagina" for the hundredth time.

Huh.

* Btw, I know that sucking starts with S but a man on UD doesn't. So for him "cooking, cleaning and sucking" is the "three C's".

Dear editor, this entry does not violate any of the rules on the editor homepage. "Rule 3. Publish opinions. Don't reject an entry just because it's opinionated. Opinions are useful to readers unfamiliar with a topic. Don't reject an entry because you disagree or are offended. Don't reject an entry because you think it's inaccurate." It is not sexist as it is a view which can be held by any gender, does not generalise entire groups and does not mention any approval or promotion of discrimination. "Rule 2 Entries can document discrimination but not endorse it." So act with a little integrity, for once.

90% are useless, worthless arseholes who vote up and post misogynistic definitions. when they're not doing that they're probably whining their egocentric hearts out that people are complaining about their stupid misogynistic arses whilst desperately trying to distance themselves from that fact. despite this they'll often either a) not vote down male chauvinism and only recognise sexism exists when (shock, horror!) it's directed at them (useless, worthless arsehole) or b) laugh at misogyny and casual sexism and vote it up. c) the absolute rarity on urbandictionary: feminist male who votes down chauvinistic, masculist sociopathy and who doesn't expect people to simply accept casual chauvinism and irrational prejudice because some other oblivious, privileged arsehole who only empathises with their own interests (fuck you) finds it amusing.