Gonna stop you right there, chief, because you used a word wrong that a lot of people use wrong. That word is "logic."
See, logic is not dogma, nor is it synonymous with reason, progressiveness, or even mental soundness. Logic is whatever process and structure you apply. That's it.
According to the logic of creationists, for instance, creationism is factual because it's factual. A, therefore A. Logical. Sound. Technically correct (THE BEST KIND OF CORRECT). New Atheists have similar logic: religion is bad because it's bad. Logical. Sound. Technically correct.
And wholly, completely useless.
This sort of logic -- which is logic and, therefore, logical -- has very little practical application. Creationists cannot prove squat and rely on misinformation and dogmatic beliefs to determine their world view. Same with New Atheists. That's why both groups are beyond hopeless, and why moderate religious folks and plain-vanilla atheists tend to be cool people, at least when it comes to their opinions on religious belief.
Following so far? Who am I kidding, of course you aren't, but I'm on a roll so let's continue.
You cite a "lack of logic" -- which is incorrect, because there is clearly a logical argument being made by the person you're replying to -- while responding with your own. Find. Dandy. Except yours is laughable and useless (though still "logical") because it's grasping at straws and failing to realize the point of the, well, *point*: that men (and women) with regressive views on women (and men) have very little actual idea about how women (and men, and any gender, apologies for excluding them) actually work.
Basically you responded to sound, useful logic with demented, useless logic -- yet, both are logic, so there you go. Now you know what "logic" actually is.
www.google.com