Muck Ryking: Petition to remove Alexander Ryking as a Tumblr politics editor
Evidently Ryking wasn't in debate club in high school.
So Alexander Ryking is a Tumblr blogger and one of Tumblr’s community “editors” for politics. He thinks of himself as a liberal.
He is also a raging misogynist who regularly calls women “cunts” and tells feminists to “kill yourselves you feminazi twats.”
In recent days he’s turned his douchebag-o-meter up to 11. As a result, there’s now a petition up on Change.org to have him removed as a politics editor on Tumblr. It’s already gotten more than 3000 signatures, with several hundred new signatures added in the time it’s taken me to write this post.
Here’s unknowable woman, a frequent target of his cyber-wrath, with more details on his recent meltdown. (Read the post on her Tumblr blog for links to the evidence of his douchebaggery.)
Alexander Ryking, who has a history of attempting to silence women bloggers (he told Jess of STFUConservatives and the other “feminazis” to “go kill themselves” several months ago, and has also been rude to women of color but I haven’t been on Tumblr long enough to have personally witnessed that), defended The Amazing’s Atheist’s violent rape threats on Reddit by tagging his posts with “I support TAA.”
I and many, many other Tumblr users were disgusted by this, so we decided to tag our criticisms of Ryking that night with “Ryking’s banana republic”—a reference to his co-opting of [social justice] concepts, NOT a homophobic dig, and the person who coined it was a queer man anyway. Someone also wrote a few jokingly romantic lines about Ryking’s blind defense of TAA and new atheism, and Ryking interpreted this as homophobic and misandric…it wasn’t, but because I reblogged it, Ryking insists that I am now a homophobe, which is hilarious given my own sexual identity but whatever.
We also responded to some of his posts with pictures of extreme close-ups of our eyes.
Seriously. That is what this guy is calling “abuse.”
We did NOT threaten him, make personal attacks against his sexuality, tell him to go kill himself, send him rude messages, or commit any other acts that could reasonably be interpreted as the “cyberbullying” Ryking claims it is. I did temporarily change my URL to rykingsbananarepublic and I make no apologies for that. Why should I? Why shouldn’t a group of feminists and their allies be allowed to respond creatively to misogyny? The only actual cyberbullying that has taken place was TAA’s initial rape threats on Reddit; I wouldn’t even go so far as to claim Ryking’s tweets to me and other Twitter users are cyberbullying, though I leave it up to the other people who were insulted by him to label their experiences as bullying or not.
Anyway, a few nights later, I tweeted something in defense of Whitney Houston’s legacy, and suddenly there was Ryking going ballistic. He found me on Twitter, called me a cunt right off the bat, and insisted that I claimed Whitney Houston’s death was “more important than the death of 5,000 Syrians” (I didn’t! Here is what I actually said!). I had never exchanged tweets with this man before, and was confused about his sudden interest in my thoughts about Whitney Houston and Syria. Naturally, I responded, told him how wrong he was, and the next day I screencapped some of the things he said and posted them … I never expected that post to get the amount of notes it did, but I think that just goes to show how widespread the dislike for him is.
Ryking, for his part, has responded to the widespread criticism by striking the pose of a victim, and pretending that it is somehow all related to race. Apparently, the evil feminazis are impugning his white manhood, though he’s not white.
So-called feminists have subjected me to white-bashing comments (even though I’m Hispanic) and sexist attacks impugning my manhood (slash-fiction scenes featuring me and heterosexual men; being called faggot; being told to man-up; insults about my body;) by people who don’t realize I’m gay. After nearly two decades online, I learned early on that when you’re attacked, you defend yourself by attacking right back and just as viciously, if not more so. And that’s what exactly what I’ve done. …
What’s really at issue here is not my rude behavior but that you and others like you want to punish any man who refuses to conform to your rancid, misandrist orthodoxy by discounting everything he says and using his gender and race as the excuse for doing so. …
You don’t want me stripped of my editorial privilege based on my behavior but because I reject your sick, bigoted, misandrist (per)version of feminism.
Yep, apparently the dude who loves to call women “cunts” is the final arbiter of what is and what isn’t “true feminism.” Who knew?
I signed the petition. How about you?
Posted on February 16, 2012, in antifeminism, creepy, douchebaggery, drama, hypocrisy, misandry, misogyny, oppressed white men, rape, rapey, vaginas, victimhood. Bookmark the permalink. 601 Comments.
Nathan seriously just used the term “career women” as if he lives in 1950s suburbia, and then has the gall to pretend that he is an expert on classism. I’ve lived for small portions of time without running water, or without electricity, I’ve eaten expired food that was slated for pigs, And, yes, the women of that economic class are still poorer and still subject to sexism. Fucking asshole, don’t claim to care about poor women, queer women, trans women, women of the global south, etc. when you only count rich western white able bodied cis hetero women as real women when it comes to discussions of sexism. All women are subjected to sexism, not just those closest in privilege to the most privileged men.
Well, way to prove your earlier claim that you weren’t dismissing women’s oppression was a lie. Also, that above is patently wrong. The poor often outnumber the rich, are seen as inferior, and given a specific inferior social role. Ethnic minority workers are exploited. This relationship is sometimes put in compatibilist terms as well. It was a pretty damned common argument in the anti-bellum south that slavery was black people’s natural place, that black people were suited for hard labor while white people were more suited to management/intellectual things. There were counties in the south that were over 90% black in the last slave census. So, would you argue that racism didn’t exist in the US slave system? Compatibilist systems can be every bit as brutally oppressive as exclusionist ones. By your standard, even the most strict cast system could never involve privilege of the upper castes or oppression of the lower ones, because the lower castes have an expected “place” and “role” in the system, we’ll just pretend that this role isn’t deemed inferior and given less rights than the others…
Are you sure this isn’t more a steak snob thing, rather than a gender thing? It’s not so much about the toughness of your GI tract than the fact that a rare steak is jucier than a well-done one.
*Head desks* Yes, steak is a status symbol if you aren’t at least middle class (and possibly sans kids there). At least try to remember that some people struggle to get meat in their diets at all.
Yes, steak is a class symbol. Yes, steak is considered “manly”. But I never heard of *how* a steak was cooked being gendered. Usually the people talking about eating rare steak aren’t doing it in the same vein that people doing beer bongs are, which *is* about the toughness of your innards.
… wow. I am quibbling over a very tiny detail. o.o
@ Quackers: “At least men are considered to have authority and control.”
I wanted to repost this because it bears repeating. The “ideal man” has to deny loads of his emotional reality and other super shitty things. But he has. power. And is allowed to express his opinions about things and people will listen to him. In order for a woman to become “more ideal,” she has to have fewer opinions, become more passive, stupid, and deferring. The ideal woman sits there and looks pretty and takes care of the children and never complains. See, recent atheist bullshit where young pretty girls were taken apart for the crime of expressing opinions on the internet.
The construction of the “ideal woman” is inherently misogynistic, because it robs women of their power and voice.
The doneness of the steak seems like it would also be a class thing, since those who can afford to buy fresher meat don’t have to be as concerned about pathogens living on the meat and can therefore cook it less.
Molly, I guess that could also be seen as steak snob thing, too. I guess I was thinking along the lines of guys who make jokes that their steak should say “Moo” when you cut into it, and then they laugh and high five each other. I’ve even heard guys make jokes about how they would pay for eating rare steak later in their bathroom (ewww). However, the A-1 rule probably would be more a steak snob thing than a macho thing. I’ve been teased for putting sauce on a dinner steak, so women aren’t exempted from these rules either.
Another way for some men to make steak into a macho thing is by making a contest of how much they can eat. The restaurant The Big Texan with their 72 oz. steak contest is an example of this. Some women also like to do these steak eating contests, but it is more popular with men.
The media plays a huge role in the gender policing with food, too. I still remember the Burger King commercial for the Texas double whopper called “I am Man, Hear me Roar!”. The commercial explicitly says men want more beef, and that woman eat quiche and “chick food”.
I feel like the stance on pathogens in steak is usually glossed over with blissful ignorance. Do people care as much about raw steak as they do raw eggs?
Yeah, I think there’s a difference between steak snob discourse and manly man steak discourse. It all reminds me of the whole 1994, Dennis Leary, politically incorrect shit. Basically it’s really rad to eat a shit diet. Backlash against that whole “red meat is bad for you” craze that swept the nation in the 1990s. It’s manly to do traditional things once the “establishment” or the “liberal nannies” have said that they’re bad, or unhealthy. It’s a way of asserting one’s power. Relatively benign flouting of established authorities such as eating red meat can be a low risk, high reward way of asserting one’s masculinity.
Though really, even rare red meat can be part of a balanced diet.
Who knew that I would get smacked in the face with the kyriarchy during a discussion about steak? Food is so COMPLICATED. o.o
Well, I know my grandmother does. I think generally the concern is ranked, in ascending order: fruit/veggies, beef, pork, chicken, eggs.
With modern refrigeration and meat packing techniques it’s certainly not as big of a concern as it used to be
I feel like the stance on pathogens in steak is usually glossed over with blissful ignorance. Do people care as much about raw steak as they do raw eggs?
I do, but then I’m probably the exception rather than the norm – my mother is a biology professor and had a jar in her lab when I was a kid containing a 7-foot-long tapeworm that had been removed from someone’s gut and then donated to the university. That sort of thing makes a bit of an impression, and left me pretty permanently unable to stomach meat that was still red in the middle.
Food preferences based on gender are not good for anyone’s health, as far as I can tell. One more way the patriarchy really sucks.
It was “Beef and Booze”!
SCTV: on this shit back in the 70s!
Anyway, back when I ate meat I loved rare steak, FWIW. Don’t really miss it now.
@Molly- As a Jew, I spend a LOT of time thinking about food. What I can eat, what I can’t eat, when I can and can’t eat at all. In pretty much every society it’s a marker of class, identity, and celebration. Food is effing fascinating, and if you want me to start leaving food ethnographies here I totally will :D
@ M Dubz, this Dinosaur Comic now seems appropriate to the conversation
http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2144
The steak I rarely get…not very good. And it’s expensive enough as it is. One has to do a lot just to make it more than the leathery crap it becomes when one is done cooking.
Man, reading Anthony Bourdain has ruined me as a (developing) foodie. Yes, it’s great to strive for quality food (no more meat treated WITH FUCKING AMONIA, for one), but I can’t even get to it. Even the Fresh & Easy stores that are popping up all over the place aren’t making things any easier.
Chuck steak is very good, especially marinated in light soy sauce and garlic and grilled.
I prefer rare, myself, but it works just as well for other cooking temperatures.
Flatiron is good too, but harder to find.
@Johnny BB- My love for Ryan North is everlasting for SO MANY REASONS. But also for that particular comic.
“Chuck steak is very good, especially marinated in light soy sauce and garlic and grilled”
Oooh, noted! :D
My love for Ryan North is everlasting for SO MANY REASONS.
You know he’s writing the Adventure Time comics, right? :D
Actually, another good way to have steak is to Teriyaki it.
Teriyaki
Light soy sauce
fresh ginger, chopped fine
fresh garlic chopped fine
sugar or honey
mix all of the above, pour over thin slices of chuck steak or chuck steak chunks, let sit for about an hour, take out and pat dry.
grill to desired doneness
Please note that light soy sauce is not the same as Lite soy sauce, which is generally lower in sodium and taste.
@ Dracula: WHUT. *is ded*
Yep. First issue’s already out.
I’m sure the conversation has long moved on, but I just wanted to say that Nathan is right about the huge amount of fear/paranoia men who want to be involved in child care/teaching experience. I’m not sure I’d call it “misandry”, but it is definitely a problem. A lot of men are terrified of any interaction with children for fear of being accused of being pedophiles. Look at that guy a year or so ago who saw a lost girl & left because he was scared; the little girl drowned. It is a huge problem. There are very few men willing to even teach elementary school theses days, much less get involved in day cares.
I’ve seen the discussions on parenting boards; all the negative and fear filled responses to posts about allowing male babysitters, male day care workers. It’s really sad, especially for men and boys who just genuinely like kids and would like a job that involves working with them
I think steak doneness can have a gender element, in the sense that there are “right” and “wrong” ways to have your steak (more well-done being “wrong”), and that steak-eating is a Man’s Activity so men are supposed to know how to do it. Circular, yes, but that doesn’t mean that women won’t be stereotyped as wanting their meat well done.
There’s also the women=vegetarian/animal lovers, and therefore women will be grossed out by bloody meat.
As far as I know, steak doneness doesn’t necessarily need to have a gender element to it. In Europe, steak is done much more rare than in the states; it is just considered to taste better cooked rare/medium rare. Then there’s steak tar tar which is purposefully served raw.
Sure, its common to hear that “men like their steak still bloody,” which makes it gendered, but there are good reasons to serve the steak on the rare side regardless. ^_^
Fun fact: In college I was once in the same discussion section as Ann Coulter. She looked and acted pretty much exactly the same as she does now. She would not shut up.
On another subject Nathan =/= MRAL, unless he’s figured out how to spoof IP addresses.
That makes me wonder whether any of the obnoxious ignoramuses I went to college with will become famous pundits.
@Skyal:
I was looking at yahoo answers for advice on male babysitters (yeah, I know…), and it looks like a lot of the friction in the comments came from the fear of sex offenders. Which are predominantly male… If I had to guess, most of the fear is out of common sense (avoid the gender which majority causes the problem), but it’s probably fed by gender roles (men can’t handle children the way women can), parental paranoia, and sexism.
It certainly is an instance of bias against males… unfortunately it isn’t a completely irrational bias.
To be fair, though, in the same section a large percentage of the comments were saying stuff like “its sexist to assume men can’t be babysitters,” so it looks like that idea is well out there.
Kirby, by your logic, corporations are justified in a reluctance to hire women. After all, the majority of harassment suits (tedious, time-consuming, a waste of company resources) are initiated by women.
Look, my head is clearer now. What exactly do you hope to gain by denying that men face systemic bias? They obviously do, even if only in a few places, and again, writing long rationalizations about how it’s SECRET misogyny just makes you look like you’re competing in the Oppression Olympics. There’s no Oppression Olympics here… at least, there shouldn’t be. But apparently it’s a thing.
God damn, I keep getting sucked back in. “Gender roles” ARE THE ROOT of most misogyny and misandry. It’s a perception that men and women can’t perform well in their respective “duties”; that’s not hatred at face value, but when taken to the extreme, you do get actual hate-mongering like “men are all pedophiles” or “those lawyercunts”. It’s really not that complicated.
I actually have encountered the “men can’t be around children” bias: My parents’ church doesn’t (or didn’t) allow men in the nursery to change diapers.
But as always, this plays just as strongly into stereotypes about women as men. Women as harmless, literally unable to hurt other people, even babies. Women as possessing some kind of all-overriding maternal instinct that makes them love all children. Women as being better at that sort of thing anyway. Women as naturally belonging in the domestic sphere, and thus being above suspicion, whereas men should have better, more important things to do, and are thus suspicious if they want to spend time with children.
@David- Oh man. I am so sorry about that. She is an awful excuse for a human being.
Back in the days of female secretaries and male bosses, I’m nearly positive it would have been near impossible to get hired as a male secretary. And that’s even more irrational than male babysitters. Does this mean that there was rampant misandry back then? No. You don’t get to label men not being able to be hired for stereotypical women’s work as misandry. -_-
Especially since when you get rid of the label of “women’s work” and get more women in stereotypical male environments, it will simultaneously break down the idea of “men’s work” and get more men in stereotypically women’s environments. So if that’s your definition of misandry, join the feminists! :P
Again, Kirby, it’s not the fact that men have a hard time getting work as a babysitter, it’s the perception of men as ********FUCKING CHILD ABUSERS*********** that is misandric.
Hey, this clown is still around? Awesome! I thought I’d totally missed him!
Yeah, the whole idea is bad for both men and women, but the real losers are the kids.
Saw this blog post recently. The author thinks the problem was race, but I bet gender was as much or even more of the problem. http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2012/02/me-apd-and-babysitting-while-white-part.html
The “men are abusers” idea plays into underlying misogynist ideas, even though in this manifestation it ends up worse for men.
It’s the “women are weak and helpless” idea. If violence is happening, it’s caused by men, because men are big and strong and women are fragile little china teacups. Both sides get harmed by this assumption, but women get harmed more. That’s kyriarchy in its plainest form.
Katz, you could say the same for any misogynist trope. Housework is women’s work? Seems misogynist, but we can’t expect those other idiot slobs to do it, can we?
You just plainly admitted that “this manifestation” ends up worse for men, then weirdly tried to retract that in the following paragraph. Sorry. This is a gendered issue that hurts men more. Sorry if that gets your fucking panties in a knot.
There has been no comparable backlash against gay rights, or civil rights, or what have you, that we’ve seen with feminism. Of course there are hate groups against the former, but nothing so widespread or with such a wide appeal. There are radical liberals who hate feminism (the subject of the OP is just one example). The MRAs are essentially disparate antifeminist sentiment gathered and rallied under a different name. I’m convinced a lot of this is in part due to the feminists’ childlike inability to recognize the more complicated reality of gender politics. It’s not the same; it cuts more; it’s more incisive and divisive. And the white girls, they don’t want to give up their blanket oppression.
Are you serious? Not that the backlash against feminism isn’t severe or fucked up, but to act like there’s no comparable backlash against shit like Affirmative Action or the fight for gay rights to marriage (and even simple recognition for the validity of non-cis-hetero orientation in general) is just………
I don’t see all that much backlash against affirmative action. A lot of grumbling, sure, but I don’t see a massive online movement that almost seems to secrete throughout the internet like a disease. As crazy as they are, MRAs have a weird, almost magnetic appeal for a lot of non-feminist men.
The push against gay marriage is rapidly falling apart, it’s been a (relatively) brief issue, and anyway the only people who have recently opposed it are conservatives. Everyone hates feminism- liberals, libertarians, conservatives, independents. There’s a reason for that.
Tiger Beatdown is the only feminist blog I read, because I find Sady Doyle’s wannabe-DFW LOLspeak style occasionally amusing. And she’s even admitted once or twice that “as someone who is so fucking privileged, I am allowed to sit here and spend all my time bemoaning my own little oppression at the hands of The Man.” Of course, that doesn’t stop her from, you know, doing it, but it’s a start.
@Nathan:
“Kirby, by your logic, corporations are justified in a reluctance to hire women. After all, the majority of harassment suits (tedious, time-consuming, a waste of company resources) are initiated by women.”
No, that’s stupid. Harassment suits are brought up because women are harassed. Not hiring women just means there are no women to harass, not that harassment has stopped. Clearer head, you say?
“What exactly do you hope to gain by denying that men face systemic bias? They obviously do…”
Sorry, you can’t just keep pushing your assertions with the argument “why don’t you want to believe the truth?”
>>>There has been no comparable backlash against gay rights, or civil rights, or what have you, that we’ve seen with feminism.
Wait, what?
Right now, in 2012, there are gay kids in America being locked up in reeducation centers to rid them of the gay. And maybe you’ve heard of that little assocation, the KKK? There are probably less MRAs in the world than there are white supremacists (if only because if you read the Spearhead of In Malafide, you’re left with the impression that every MRA is a white supremacist in the first place).
Nathan: Oppression olympics much? Also, your Concern about what Sady (“I’m fucking Sady Doyle”) Doyle should be writing about, is noted.
>>>As crazy as they are, MRAs have a weird, almost magnetic appeal for a lot of non-feminist men.
That’s because the Internet is populated with nerds that still haven’t gotten over the fact they didn’t get to bang the cheerleader in high school.
“Tiger Beatdown is the only feminist blog I read, because I find Sady Doyle’s wannabe-DFW LOLspeak style occasionally amusing. And she’s even admitted once or twice that “as someone who is so fucking privileged, I am allowed to sit here and spend all my time bemoaning my own little oppression at the hands of The Man.” Of course, that doesn’t stop her from, you know, doing it, but it’s a start.”
Wait, what?
Are you so angry that you have to mischaracterize Doyle’s arguement like that?
@Nathan:
“you do get actual hate-mongering like “men are all pedophiles””
“Again, Kirby, it’s not the fact that men have a hard time getting work as a babysitter, it’s the perception of men as ********FUCKING CHILD ABUSERS*********** that is misandric.”
Have you read schrodinger’s rapist? Is this an article that calls all men rapists? If not, how do you get from “pedophiles are more likely to be men” to “men are all pedophiles?” There’s a pretty big fucking difference here, in that the latter (like the idea that feminists want to kill all men) doesn’t exist in any substantial amount.
*sigh* Oh html tags… ‘/b’ doesn’t end an ‘a’ tag…
So, Nathan, just out of curiosity, why did you throw a “you’re so privileged!” tantrum at me, and then veer from your inital topic of the idea that men aren’t suited for childcare work into that odd little rant about how you bet I’ve had a super easy life with lots of relationship success? How exactly did you get from point A to point B there? Because as far as I know you and I have no history – it’s not like you know my personal backstory. Why is this the assumption that you make about women who don’t agree with you, and why do you think that “I think men are discriminated against in the childcare profession” is a topic that logically leads into “your life must be awesome and I bet you have an easier time with relationships than men”?*
Because what I’m seeing here is a kneejerk response that doesn’t make any sense within the context of your argument. Unless you actually do think that men are discriminated against in the childcare profession because feminists get lots of dates, which would be a hilarious argument.
* Just FYI, not all men are socially awkward, unsuccessful at dating, unlucky in relationships, etc. Which is why that was a rather bizarre segue.
“That’s because the Internet is populated with nerds that still haven’t gotten over the fact they didn’t get to bang the cheerleader in high school.”
Hey, now, not being able to bang the cheerleader is a legitimate trauma.
/nerd
/no really, I am a nerd, but I’m like, “Psh, whatevs” about not getting laid in HS
PS Oh Nathan, for you of all people to make the argument that other people are playing Oppression Olympics is hilarious.
@Nathan:
“Everyone hates feminism- liberals, libertarians, conservatives, independents. There’s a reason for that.”
source
@CassandraSays:
What’s funny to me is that if I’m playing oppression Olympics, then I’m apparently batting for the wrong team.
Also, no backlash against the gay rights movement? Someone isn’t paying attention. The pray the gay away movement didn’t come out of nowhere.
@ kirby
Bets that he’ll call you a mangina or a traitor by the end of this conversation?
Nathan does not know what “oppression olympics” means. Oppression olympics involves comparing actual oppressions, like saying being gay is worse than being black or vice versa. Telling privileged people they are privileged and not fucking oppressed along their axis of privilege is not in any way, shape, or form oppression olympics. Men aren’t fucking oppressed, they are privileged, along the axis of gender oppression/sexist oppression.
Also, Nathan is actually trying, as an uber privileged person, to say that anyone who is privileged along any axis must shut up about being oppressed along another. That’s a form of oppression olympics. White gay people don’t have to shut up about homophobia because they have white privilege, black heteros don’t have to shut up about racism because they have hetero privilege. Women who are privileged on other axis of oppression (like race, class, colonialist position, etc.) don’t have to shut up about sexism.
You know who should shut up? An entitled little douche bag prick named Nathan. He’s picked up, though he totally and absolutely misuses them, common social justice terms. This means he has had plenty of opportunity to learn and has willfully neglected to do so.
Fuck off, Nathan.
@CassandraSays:
I’ve mentioned my gender several times, yet he still seems to think we’re all privileged middle-class white girls. *shrug*
I just don’t believe that, BlackBloc. The KKK is almost completely marginalized these days. Gay opposition comes from a rapidly dwindling conservative sect, and it’s terrible- don’t get me wrong- but it’s not the same thing.
Because beyond the MRAs- ask around. There is a HELL of a lot of very deep-seeded antifeminist resentment in a lot of men, and some women too. There’s an interesting video on youtube, if you can find it- “feminists on the street”, or “what men on the street think of feminism”. A lot of the shit they say is very banal, and you could laugh at it- but it indicative of the level of, again, not anger really, but resentment, more like. There is no comparable widespread sentiment toward, say, the gay rights movement.
And also, yeah, I can and will share my opinion on what I think Sady fucking Doyle should be writing about. I’ll also share my opinion that she does a shitty job at ripping off David Foster Wallace.
DSC, as I’ve said, I reject the notion that gender privilege exists in such absolutes. That’s simply wrong- and most people agree with me. Deal with it, bubba.
“Because beyond the MRAs- ask around. There is a HELL of a lot of very deep-seeded antifeminist resentment in a lot of men, and some women too. There’s an interesting video on youtube, if you can find it- “feminists on the street”, or “what men on the street think of feminism”. A lot of the shit they say is very banal, and you could laugh at it- but it indicative of the level of, again, not anger really, but resentment, more like. There is no comparable widespread sentiment toward, say, the gay rights movement.”
Ok, one question: How the fuck does a YOUTUBE VIDEO accurately represent the hatred of Feminism in America? If I used a video of a bigoted white guy sprouting White Nationalist bullshit as a representation of backlash against the Civil Rights Movement, how would you react?
Yeah, it’s called misogyny.
“DSC, as I’ve said, I reject the notion that gender privilege exists in such absolutes. That’s simply wrong- and most people agree with me.”
Most people agree with me when I say that Dark Chocolate + Rasberries = Yum.
Deal with it, philistines.
/makes just as much sense.
I also like how you assume I’m privileged, despite the fact that you know fucking nothing about me.
Cassandra, I referenced your life as being privileged, one of which may includes a successful social life, whiteness, straightness, or whatever. Of course, I don’t actually know that- it was a dumb tangent.
@Holly Pervocracy- It’s an antifeminist resentment, not an anti-woman resentment. You guys just spent hours explaining how misandry isn’t valid when it only affects “a subset of the male population”; you don’t get to turn it around here. Deal with it, bubba.
So Nathan, are you saying that you are something other than a cis white dude with access to a computer and a regular source of income?
So your basis for deciding that feminism has gone too far is that a lot of MEN are opposed to it?!!!
A lot of White people were opposed to ending slavery as well. And a shit ton of heterosexuals are opposed to the idea that homosexuality is not a perversion.