I can't for the life of me imagine what Malaysia's tourism minister Tengku Adnan Mansor was thinking of when, on International Women's Day of all days, he made a speech in which he savaged the fairer sex, or at least a very vocal segment of it.

According to the translation I saw of a report of his address by the Chinese-language Sin Chew Daily, he started off safely enough with the standard-issue government slander that "Bloggers are liars. They use all sorts of ways to cheat others."

But then he sallied forth with the statement that, from what he knew, "out of 10,000 unemployed bloggers, 8,000 are women."

At that point his train of thought jumped the tracks entirely, and ploughed on through a nightmare scenario in which he explained these bloggers "don't like national unity" and thus threaten to cause a civil war in which "Malays will kill Chinese, Chinese will kill Malays, and Indians will kill everybody else".

I can see the minister's concern here. Slaughter on such an apocalyptic scale could, if news of it leaked out, almost certainly have quite a negative effect on visitor arrivals. Though to look on the bright side, it would also provide an excellent opportunity for Umno to make a killing by taking a monopoly position in the undertaking industry, if it hasn't done so already.

But let's forget for a second the pros and cons of the civil war with which the electorate is forever being threatened in the event that it fails to unite in support of Barisan Nasional, and focus on a more immediate question. Why did Tengku Adnan single out women as largely to blame for the kind of blogging that would cause such a conflagration?

Because he perceives women bloggers as boggling the minds of the populace by brazenly baring their souls, just as some of their sisters incite men to rape by flaunting their bodies? Because he's harbouring a grudge against a particular woman blogger? Or is it the unemployed he has it in for, or unemployed women in particular?

On the other hand, is it possible, as he reportedly now claims, that he was misquoted? Or should that read missquoted or even msquoted?

Flak all round

Whichever, he's certainly been getting some flak for his alleged inflammatory remarks from both female bloggers and lots of their male supporters, of whom I happen to be one.

Not that I'm a blogger, you understand. It's just that, despite how dull-witted some feminists consider us men to be, I'm acutely aware of the perils of gender politics, and entirely unsympathetic to politicians who stupidly persist in their sexual chauvinism.

Setting-out to alienate any or all of the three billion or so mothers, daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends on the planet, especially those with broadband Internet access and lots of spare time on their hands, just doesn't seem very smart somehow.

Call me a wimp if you will, but as attractive and endearing as I find a great many females, I'm at pains to be as diplomatic as possible in my discussions with them.

In the unlikely instance of suspecting one of some slight carelessness with the truth, for example, I'd be very hesitant indeed about coming right out and calling her a 'liar'. And as for having the gall to affront any of the formidable women I can think of with the epithet 'unemployed', forget it.

Civil war might be one thing. But cross most females seriously enough and you're looking down the barrel of a highly uncivil war. A take-no-prisoners affair without quarter or mercy. So if I've learned anything at all from the experience of having a mother, three sisters, several sisters-in-law, a daughter, and more girlfriends and wives than some may consider wise, it's to do my darndest to keep a civil tongue in my head around women.

Not that this always works. Steely politeness doesn't necessarily cut it, and nor does silence, as smart women - and that means all of them or at least all the ones I know - can easily discern when it signifies indifference, disagreement or dumb insolence.

Thanks, Ma!

But Tengku Adnan didn't even have the smarts to try curbing his rhetoric. He just went on and on. Concluding, according to the translation I saw, with the ringing declaration that "We have to show the people our positive attitude. If the world learns from us, there will be peace and no civil war."

At least he finally got past the rampantly sexist stage of his rantings. But, having so negatively characterised all bloggers as liars, what's this "positive attitude" he was proposing that the people be shown? A positive attitude to employed male politicians in preference to unemployed female bloggers? Or a positive attitude to himself and his fellow floggers of the notion that the only alternative to the sleazy status quo in Malaysia is the spectre of civil war?

In his rebuttal following several days of Internet rage, Tengku Adnan "explained" that he had been referring to just one unveracious virtual virago - Nila Tanzil, the Indonesian critic of his department's efficiency.

How there could be 8,000 out of 10,000 Nila Tanzils, and what the word "unemployed" has to do with her since she clearly at the time had a job in television, he failed to reveal.

One revelation he did come up with, however, was that he wouldn't be here if it wasn't for one particular woman, his mother. A truism that I doubt will soften the hearts of many of the female bloggers he has branded as liars, or of Malaysia's feminist voters.

After all, a woman doing her son the favour of bearing him doesn't make her responsible for how unbearably he chooses to express himself in future political speeches.