So I had the misfortune to read “Sadly No” this morning. There was a post up called “Are Y’all Read for Some DERANGED LUNACY??? Damn Right You Are,” the point of which was to castigate a right-winger for the odious column he wrote about the Duke lacrosse player rape allegations, in the context of which, Brad referred to “Frontpagemag” as “D-Ho’s Crack Den.”
So, stupidly, because I should know better than go anywhere near purportedly lefty “comedy” sites like “Sadly No,” I commented as follows:
While I mostly agree with you on the merits here, do you not see how referring to Frontpage as “D-Ho’s Crack Den” is a little racist and sexist in its own right?
Well, here are some of the replies that generated (you can see the whole thread at Sadly No): I’ve cleaned up some of the typos, especially mine:
By Brad (original poster): “I don’t get it. I’m saying that a bunch of silly white guys who write moronic columns for David Horowitz (or “D-Ho,” as we affectionately call him) are essentially on crack. If anything, it’s an insult to the crack addicts.”
By me: “D-Ho is not supposed to be a dialected pronounciation of “the whore”? Really?”
By Brad: “Well, yes and no. It’s also a play on David Horowitz’ name, the sort that is popularized by names like “J-Lo” (Jennifer Lopez) and “A-Rod” (Alex Rodriguez). The fact that shortening Horowitz’ name in this manner makes him “D-Ho” is just a hilarious coincidence.”
By me: “Hilarious to you, perhaps. In this context especially, to me, not so much.”
By Gavin (another blogger at Sadly No): “I can’t believe this. Ann Bartow comes by and says, ‘That’s not funny.’ It’s like you’re sitting in a bar, and a priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk in.”
Because I’m a joke, obviously. Now here is some input from pseudonymous commenters as well:
By “Mal de Mer”: “Wow. Talk about wielding self-centredness and silly bourgeois sensibilities as a way of completely deflecting from the main fucking point. Sorry to break it to you, Ann (Althouse, is it?) but this post isn’t about you.”
Because it is self-centered of me to tepidly point out sexism and racism and I therefore must be called “Ann Althouse” for some reason.
By Gavin: “That is not funny. I am offended.”
By “Mal de Mer”: “What a coincidence….I’m running a workshop on exactly this issue this afternoon. You’re welcome to join. Bring a small hand-mirror.”
Gee, nothing sexist there.
By “Gratis“: “Hey, Ann, ever hear of man whores? What, you didn’t know they exist? I think I saw a movie once…. And if that’s the most offensive thing you find on this post then you really need to look in the mirror. For the love of Isis, get that PC bug out of your ass. That prick “D-Ho” (and as a woman I find that completely fucking hilarious) could and should be called a lot worse.”
By me: “So calling people “ho” is funny, but suggesting maybe calling people “ho” in the context of a discussion about racially charged rape accusations is less than ideal is self-centered? Oh, I’ll take any concern expressed here for the woman very seriously now…if there is any.”
By Retardo (who is another Sadly No blogger; very classy name, huh?): “No, no Brad. We’re the racists. Get it straight.”
By Spencer: “Oh, it’s hilarious to me too. But then, I’m not always trying to contextualize everything, which may be why I don’t see the comment as the same grave threat to human decency that you do.”
By me (shaking with anger, so there were lots of typos): “No, you’re absolutely perfect. Any woman who comes here and reads this will be delighted by the caring and sensitivity. “D-Ho’s Crack Den” will have them rolling in the aisles. Why is it that the criminal justice system treats crack so much more harshly than corollary drugs like cocaine? Because it is viewed as a “black” drug. Oh the peals of laughter that inspires! And when you say “D-Ho” just like Amos and Andy might – heelarious. Truly, what could be funnier. Oh, and calling someone a “ho” in a discussion about rape, where the woman is poor and black and the accused are white and privileged. Why they may well have called her a “ho” while they were attacking her, so it’s true comedy gold. But of course this is so very BOURGEOIS of me. Sorry to interrupt. By all means continue congratulating yourselves for being so morally superior to the wing nuts.”
By “Lucy”: “Let this be a lesson to you all not to say anything that your commenters might misconstrue through the lens of their own carefully cultivated hypersensitivity. Because once they get offended by a joke that had a completely different provenance and point than they think it did, they won’t believe anything else you have to say. Obviously you were joking cruelly at the expense of the woman, using a painstaking point-by-point “J’accuse” as the cover for your dirty, evil, racist, sexist screed. Oh, yeah, I forget, you’re also “spewing hate.” –Where’s my check, Hindrocket?”
And many other “shut up and go away” comments. Because, you know, censorship is wrong!
Late entry from “Spence“: “Ann Bartow. Hmmm…. A-Ho, anyone? And you thought the humorless liberal scold was a figment of Rush Limbaugh’s imagination!”
And another from “Jerry Brown”: “How about Ann BARTho. She works the trains in the Bay Area. Why do you even read Sadly No.”
And still more from good old Brad, here. Because even rather mildly (at least initially) raising a concern deserves nothing less than utter vilification.
And from Guiness Guy: “What a frigid bi- er… lady? No, uhhh… how about gender-nonspecific fellow human? There we are: She’s a frigid-ass gender-nonspecific fellow human.I think, nonetheless, Brad, that you should hack off your penis to avoid further angering ol’ Ann.”
What a relief that these folks are purported leftists; I’d hate to think of all that warm-hearted goodness in the service of the right.
–Ann Bartow
But you left out the best lines!
Seriously, Ann, stopping by our comments and criticizing incidences of un-PC speech is unlikely, at the best of times, to draw a positive reception.
Apropos censorship, which is a word I was surprised to see in your post above, we have a no-registration, no-ban, no-delete policy that covers all commenters equally. It doesn’t, however, prevent people from not liking what one says, and arguing with one in comments. That’s not censorship, but its opposite.
Ann, I’m not exactly sure what to say to support you because, for some reason, I continue to be shocked to near speechlessness by the general level of hostility toward women in any and all circumstances.
However, I hated the thought of you hanging out there alone, so I wanted to post something!
Tracy McGaugh
South Texas College of Law
I hope by leaving your support Prof. McGaugh, you mean that you are supporting those of us who are outraged by the commentary by Front Page Magazine on the Duke rape crime.
I mean, the article and comments at FPM really does leave one speechless.
I hate the thought of anyone focusing attention away from where the righteous anger should truly be directed.
Why don’t people ever spell my handle correctly? It’s a popular beverage, after all. You’re not the first, so I suppose I can’t blame you, nor am I a paragon of spelling prowess, but please: if you’re going to hold me up as an example of woman-hating-ness, could you please edit it to the correct name? I want people to know which internet commenter pseudonym to denounce as a chauvinist.
Sigh… sometimes it’s so hard to cower behind the wall of anonymity.
Thanks in advance,
GuinnessGuy
This is getting out of control, which is of course what people live for on the internets.
Listen, I go by P-Pu, you probably go by A-Mu, am I a smelling cesspit? Probably. Are you related to a large flightless bird? Maybe. All those things are besides the point. I think Gavin wasn’t calling you a joke before, I think he was talking about the completely coincidental nature of the entire affair.
I think it’s most certainly a joke now. Listen, we’re all patriarchy blamers here, why the friendly fire?
kathleen- w00t! I love kathleen.
I think it’s important of you to have commented there, despite those obnoxious responses. I’m constantly amazed at how cloaking something in humor is supposed to absolve the speaker any responsibility for the consequences of it, intended or not, so that somehow it is hugely inappropriate, maybe even evil, and certainly responsible for the downfall of society as we know it, to point out what those consequences might be. So, “it only counts if I consciously meant it to count, and even then it doesn’t count if it’s funny, too, and it’s your (fringy person) fault for trying to even suggest that there are consequences, much less that they’re bad”? Methinks though doth protest too much. Yeesh.
When somebody says something stupid, it is slang to tell them to “put down the bong” “quit hitting the crack rock” calling them “high” “wasted” “under the influence” “a drinks soaked popinjay” calling for them to “eschew ye olde cracke rocke” “stop hitting the Oxy” don’t be “Exed out of your f****** gourd”- there is not racism there, there just isn’t. It is absolutely true that crack is a drug that has devastated poor, African-American communities (whether absolutely true or true only in perception about the scale and prevalence of the drug outside said communities), but calling someone that has written a racist and sexist diatribe essentially defending rape a denizen of a “crack house” because their words are so terrible, that is not racist. It isn’t. You could make the case that there is a lack of sensitivity there, but calling that racism defeats the point of having “racism” mean something.
I think it’s important of you to have commented there, despite those obnoxious responses.
Actually, we didn’t learn anything. We’re perhaps even less convinced than before that progressive politics is a language-game whose most imminent priority is piety toward hypothetical people-who-might-be-offended.
But we’re certainly all on the same side here in terms of issues, I think.
I’m constantly amazed at how cloaking something in humor is supposed to absolve the speaker any responsibility for the consequences of it
You realize they were talking about a guy, right? A guy who’s first name begins with the letter D and who’s laste name begins with the letters HO? You get that, right? Good lord, you people are freaking nuts.
So,”it only counts if I consciously meant it to count, and even then it doesn’t count if it’s funny, too, and it’s your (fringy person) fault for trying to even suggest that there are consequences
Here’s a hint: When you’re the only person who finds something offensive, and the reason you find it offensive is because you are apparently completely ignorant of the context in which the comment was made, maybe you need to do a little self-check. Whether or not the phrase was funny is completely irrelevant to whether it was offensive.
Let me guess, you think that by calling Jennifer Lopez “J-Lo”, people are making a joke about the perceived social status of Latinas, right? Or that “A-Rod” is reference to Alex Rodriguez’s sexual hardware (or software, as the case may be). I guess when you put a lot of effort in finding things offensive, you can often be successful.
Actually I think it is supremely evil to blame a rape victim, and I think it is supremely evil to subject said rape victim to racist and sexist slurs. And I find it at least hugely inappropriate to attack people who are drawing attention to that evil with a distracting friendly grenade lob.
I await your commentary on the Front Page Magazine article and comments with anticipation, Ms. McCormick. I am sure it will be great.
There are certinaly people protesting too much, but is it Gavin, Brad, et al.? Sadly, No!
I completely understand that the humor-cloak is BS, especially where it is used to cover up ridiculous statements. I just think you need to ask yourself whether this is a borderline example, or a clear cut example for you to make that point. Does any of this make sense? There are times when certain S,N! posters may be perceived as sexist (not racist in my opinion), it just doesn’t strike me as this being one of those times. Could it possibly be that your ignorance regarding the nature of the term “D-Ho” led you astray here? Or perhaps you meant to suggest it was racist by alluding to Horowitz’s previous association with the Black Panthers, but you didn’t think that S,N! could be that evil as to try and tar Horowitz with “black association” while at the very same time attempt to claim someone writing for him was a sexist, racist chumpwagon.
As a feminist who has known Brad R. for — let me see — six years now, the idea of him as misogynistic, racist, or both is the biggest laugh I’ve had in months, so thank you for that.
But do you know who’s laughing even harder? That would be all the people out there who really are misogynistic and racist, laughing over the fact that they’ve got us fighting each other instead of them. Divide and conquer — works every time. So no thanks for that.
Pingback: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Thanks!
Yup. That pretty much sums it up.
Wait a second. Do I detect a bit of…dare we say…sarcasm?
Praise the Lord! By this tiny tendril, this tender shoot, we Keep. Hope. Alive!
If it is thy will, Lord, may even the parched desert of Feministlawprofs blog be softened up for the tender budding rose of satire. For once was my sense of humor dead, but it has been made alive again!
BTW, is it just me, or is Marcia McCormack more in need of a blow job than any white man in history?
Yours in societal downfall, XoXo.
That is disgusting. You are no longer welcome to comment here.
Damn, and I thought it was my felony conviction that kept me out of law school!
Dearest Ann, moments of great oppression produce great satire (see Swift etc.). The likes of Sadly No! or John Stewart do more to strike blows against the entrenched power structure then you will in your entire career of teaching Tort 101 to the future ambulance chasers of America. The proper response to the sanctimonious moral prudes that run this country is to make fun of them, mercilessly and at length, with every available weapon (see eating Irish children, etc.). It is, in a way, the only sane response. You can imagine how perturbing it is to those who instinctually grasp this fact when we are faced with someone who, in theory, agrees with us on the issues, while having the same rigid and reactionary thought processes as those whom we oppose. It is because we laugh that we are different then them.
Change happens in the culture. By cutting yourself off from it with your judgemental gaze, you take yourself out of the conversation, just as surely as you have taken me out of yours.
Best of luck with that.
There is nothing funny about calling a woman a man, or saying she needs a blow job. And you do a great disservice to Jon Stewart.
Amid this fracas, one thing occurs to me. Have you even spoken with this victim? Obviously you can’t, because her name has been kept private.
Therefore, without knowing her, you’re taking her rage and pain and misappropriating it in the service of making yourself feel like the martyred crusader for women’s rights. Rather than using your forum here to call others like yourself to volunteer at rape crisis centers, or calling the viciously racist and misogynist author of the FrontPage Magazine article on the carpet, you’re using it to do the most useless thing of all, attacking the very people who have the guts to speak out about this sort of thing when you won’t.
This shows the intellectual poverty and regressive nature of the postmodernist-influenced liberalism as nothing else can. It’s even worse than focusing on what one says, than what one does. Instead, it’s how one says it, rather than what one says, and real world actions are dismissed as irrelevant–so nothing changes, but we can talk about it endlessly.
Huh? That may not be the highest form of humor, but gags like that worked pretty damn well for Shakespeare. It may not be right, it may not be civilized, but that’s been funny for a few hundred years at least.
While I mostly agree with you that you got piled on over at S.N!, do you not see how titling this post as “Still More Humorless Feminism” is a little sexist in its own right?
Now that is funny. Or, if I misunderstand and you feel you have a legitimate complaint, please elaborate. I’ll try not to say anything obscene or threatening if I disagree.
Ann –
Just to be clear, I am not the same commenter as Spence. Personally, I think dropping the “r” is teh l4me – but even so, I’d hate for anyone to hold him responsible for anything I wrote.
S’okay – I understand how easy it could be to make such a mistake when you were trembling with rage like that . . .
No, Ann. I don’t have a legitimate complaint about your title. But it does bother me that you would even think someone might find your title sexist. And it bothers me even more that you’re probably right — there may be people out there who would find your title sexist and would call you on it.
By the same token, I don’t think you had a legitimate complaint about Sadly, No!’s use of “D-Ho’s Crack Den.” I’m pretty sure Brad would have used the same or a similar headline for a post about anything that appears in the steaming pile of crap David Horowitz calls “Front Page Magazine.” But you read racism and sexism into it, to the point of ignoring the REAL racism and REAL sexism in the Yeagley screed that was the focus of Brad’s post. Yeagley wrote something outrageous and offensive, but you aimed your outrage and offense at those who were ridiculing it, those who are *on your side*. And when they called bullshit on that, you turned it up a notch.
And yes, the commenters there piled on you a bit. You deserved it, as does anybody who says something off-the-wall or arguably hypocritical — you did give Berube a pass on “D-Ho,” after all — over there. And yes, eventually someone said something truly offensive to/about you. You definitely did not deserve that, and several people said so. But if you were expecting your original comment to be met with “Hmm, if you feel you have a legitimate complaint, please elaborate and we’ll try not to say anything obscene or threatening if we disagree”… well, then, I’d say you don’t read S,N! very often, or you’d know better.
It was my first AND LAST time at Sadly No, no worries there.
I can actually understand your anger had you come into the discussion completely ignorant of the terms being thrown around – but as has been pointed out, you were aware of ‘D-Ho’ being employed by Michael Berube and apparently others. The context of the term is clearly, therefore, utterly independent of this individual article – and you knew that beforehand. Therefore I’m afraid I don’t understand your objection; the context, if anything, removes the sexist and racist connotations.
To some extent I can understand how ‘ho’ could be offensive to women in general, even (in certain contexts especially) when applied to a man. However, and to engage in something of a tu quoque, I find it perplexing that you denigrate Sadly No on this ground and on the ground of hiding behind humour – and yet in your next entry on this subject satirise their position as treating you like a ‘dumb fucking asshole bitch’ – which surely, especially given the fact that David Yeagley called the anonymous rape victim ‘socially retard[ed]’, ‘idiotic’, and ‘stupid’, stands as utterly contradictory to your position on Brad’s use of D-Ho and so forth, ie., that given the story upon which they’re commenting, adopting the terminology used to ridicule the victim is absolutely inappropriate.
As a Briton I fail to see the racist connotation of ‘crack den’ – I’ve always assumed that it was employed to ridicule an argument or point absolutely contrary to reality and basic reason, regardless of ethnicity, as Pinko Punko pointed out; but then our own history of crack dens is rather gloriously multicultural and cross-class.
And for the record, I can only agree that a few people went beyond the pail when ridiculing you. But I genuinely think your own objections with the piece itself are without merit – and incidentally, I’d argue that Brad’s concern for the woman was rather evident in his acerbic fury at Yeagley for ridiculing her.
[This is in response to your more recent post, which I did not want to clutter]
As someone not “too gutless” to comment under my real name, let me say first that a number of the comments on Sadly, No! in response to yours were indeed highly offensive and inexcusable. To the extent that anyone seemed to be making a point, however, it was that the “those humorless feminists” argument has always been a strawman one, and it thus seems particularly damaging when someone seems to be adding actual evidence to it (whether or not this was in fact the case). I’ve seen many instances on Sadly, No! and similar blogs of obvious sexism (of the humor-cloaked variety, which, as others have pointed out, is no more excusable), but the one you cited seemed to me, and likely most others who read it, to be entirely devoid of sexist intent or content. If there were a clear sexist meaning to it and you could explain this (personally I’d be very interested to see different feminist takes on terms like “corporate whore”, now applied in a non-gendered fashion to persons like Horowitz), it could actually have been a greatly educative experience to at least some of those reading the comment. But as such it presumed that others would instantly understand your point, which was not the case, given that “whore” and variations of it have been in non-gendered colloquial use for some time, and jokes about crack, likewise, do not always or even usually have racial connotations and appeared very clearly–to me, at least–not to in this instance.
Of course, this point or other on-the-merits ones, which someone should have made on the initial thread over there and I would have if I had seen your comment at the time, have now been overshadowed by the responses you did receive. As you say, one should be allowed to make a brief comment without receiving a vicious response (and a number of clearly sexist ones). And no, someone should not have to expect such a response when commenting anywhere outside certain rightwing sites, which makes it especially sad to see in this case. Sadly, No! was never on my blogroll, but given what seems to be an entirely unserious response on the part of its authors to the sexist comments, it would be off it right now.
Sorry, it’s like a car accident. I tried, but I can’t look away. First, I apologize if it seems to those flaming that I said they were evil and responsible for the downfall of society. That is not what I meant, nor, do I think, what I said, but that’s another issue. The flaming of Ann was obnoxious. The point about humor and defensiveness was this: Person A makes a joke; Person B says, some people might think part of it isn’t funny; Person A (or Persons C through Z on behalf of A) respond quite defensively that Person B is evil for suggesting that there might be consequences and Person B is responsible for the downfall of society for not falling into line and seeing the innocent intent. Accidental offenses are the fault of the hearers alone, and those hearers are the fringy people.
Most of the people who commented at Sadly No actually were complete grown-ups and simply ignored the comment if they disagreed with it. I just don’t see where the venom comes from. And Spence’s comment about me? I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. I’m not offended, it’s just not funny or, frankly, insulting. In fact, it’s just odd.
FWIW As most readers are no doubt aware, when “crack” became culturally visible, legislatures and courts responded with draconian punishments, including criminal sanctions that were much harsher than those imposed for equivalent quantities of cocaine. There wasn’t a medical (or even logical) basis for this, so many obervers believe the explanation is rooted in racism, related to a gross misperception that cocaine was a “white” drug but crack was a “black” drug. A little “googling” and you will get a better grasp of this, or check out these articles:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/230/sentencingcommission.shtml
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/386/ctbill.shtml
More detailed discussions of this issue can be found in this report by The Sentencing Project : http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/1003.pdf
and this report by the Drug Policy Alliance: http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/raceandthedr/crack_cocaine.cfm
and this memo by the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/sentencing/10662leg20020521.html
And another link about “drug wars race-based discrimination,” this time involving methaphetamine, here:
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/04/drug-war-discrimination.html
And still more from Is That Legal. How nice it would have been to have had a civil conversation about ths at Sadly No. Oh well:
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/04/proving_discrim.html:
“I’ve always been troubled by the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in United States v. Armstrong. The question in the case was how much evidence of a racially discriminatory motive a criminal defendant has to produce in order to convince a trial court to give him access to possible evidence of discrimination from within the prosecutor’s office itself (memoranda, statistics, and the like).
“The defendants in the Armstrong case had come forward with some evidence — not a ton, but some — that the US Attorney in Los Angeles was singling out blacks for crack cocaine prosecutions in federal court. It was enough evidence to persuade the federal trial judge to allow the defendants discovery of some material in the prosecutor’s files and records. But the Supreme Court shut that discovery down, pooh-poohing the evidence of racial discrimination that the defendants had managed to come up with and setting an absurdly high burden of proof for defendants trying to prove discriminatory prosecution.”
I think it is clear that the bias against crack via drug laws is racially/socially motivated. No one would argue that. However, I think it is a jump to claim that any and all references to crack are racially motivated. To be slightly hyperbolic, the racist use of particular foods as stereotypical to certain ethnic groups does not render a mention of those foods as racist.
Also, the Rev. is a very thoughtful and astute commenter- it is always nice to see him out and about.
I think it is clear that the bias against crack via drug laws is racially/socially motivated. No one would argue that.
What do you mean “no one would argue that.” That is exactly what people were saying. Quite a few said that I was making this connection myself, and this made me a racist. Go back and read the comment threads.
I think it is a jump to claim that any and all references to crack are racially motivated.
I never said “any and all references to crack are racially motivated.” Not even close. Here is what I said about Brad’s comment:
“While I mostly agree with you on the merits here, do you not see how referring to Frontpage as”D-Ho’s Crack Den”is a little racist and sexist in its own right?”
So, let’s review: I did not say what you say I said. People DID say what you say they did not say. You have not been paying attention, and this has all gotten completely pointless.
Also, I meant to deal with this before, but neglected to:
This idea that Michael Berube “got a pass” is a fabricated pack of lies that the tiniest bit of research would dispel. Rather, he took a lot of heat for using “D.Ho,” though he used in a much different, milder context than Brad (there were no racially charged rape allegations at issue, there was no “crack den” appended by him) by someone other than me. And he stopped using “D. Ho.” in consequence. He is a smart, wonderful person and a brilliant blogger. Spew bile on me if you must, but leave him the hell alone.
Here’s another person who likes to call people “ho” –
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004
flp-
no one was arguing that there can be racial overtones with people dealing with crack. The arguments were that the expression as it was used in the context it was used did not have an obligate racial/racist connotation. My hyperbolic examples that I chose not to name previously- certain foods- can cleary have racist connotations, but would not depending on the way they were used. Discussing somebody saying ridiculous things and acting like they “are on drugs or high” is such a cliche used in essentially all walks of life, the specific drug mentioned is so secondary to the rest of the statement, it was felt that the statement was not racist. Now we are within the realm of differing opinions, and for many things the call in polite society goes to the offended, not the offender, in this case, it seems that many people took a stand and felt that the offense was not legitimate. There we are.
AB-
The “spewing of bile” is not happening with the people that are actively trying to engage here. Of course, given others escalation, there are two paths, using their escalation to legitimize your own, or ignoring them and engaging the people that appear to be reasonable.
Those who have advantage within society find it easy to see humour in the struggles of others for equality. Life looks different from the other side, and it is doubtful they would, absent privilege and entitlement.
Every feminist I know has a sense of humour… it’s just that we are once again expected to follow the lead of men, and laugh at their humour, even if it isn’t funny.
Guys, it’s not funny.
Pingback: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » “You know, I’m beginning to think that D-Ho’s campaign against liberals in academe may have some previously hidden merits.”
Why do they find it so hard to just say “Hey, if someone’s telling me it’s offensive or problematic… maybe it is.”
It’s painful to see all these sexist personal attacks on you, but on the other hand it lets you know exactly who thinks what. Brings out all the ugliness into the open.
Pingback: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Bad Behavior
Pingback: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Detente? Sadly, Not Yet
It’s amazing and somewhat sad that they managed to squarely hit *every* strawfeminist trope in their assault on this blog. Unfortunately loyalty to sides in the gender divide seems to transcend rightness of cause. After all, if a woman dares to speak up in disagreement, she must be silenced!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.