you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zephyranthes 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

  • We're starting off with a quote from a misogynist book. Nice.

  • Drag is womanface.

  • "cisgender women"? Seriously now?

  • Laughing at the meltdown of a woman who's been ripped away from her children and became the property of a man ever since - yay, feminism! I don't believe a follower of celebrity gossip can be unaware of what happened to Ms Spears.

(whoosh whoosh)

  • Gender pay gap doesn't exist.

  • And the lobster man himself!

Whoa, what a ride.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]zephyranthes 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I quit reading and scrolled down to the links section. Most of them are nonamers and I wouldn't grace them with a click, but two caught my eye:

    PragerU is a video blogging "nonprofit" promoting outright misogyny (sex essentialism, male and female brains, sexual harassment as a man's right, forced birth) and anti-woman social policies. Despite having "U" in the name, the highest level of education at which their command of English is not aesthetically offensive is probably "middle school dropout".

    The Lobster Man is Jordan Peterson, "men's rights" activists' favorite (anti-)intellectual, who also denies the pay gap and argues in favor of patriarchy and forced marriage as a means of preventing terrorism committed by unpartnered males (purely as an intellectual exercise, of course - wink wink - nevermind that his fame arose from self-help books with an audience of emotionally unstable and unpartnered young men).

    The lobster appellation comes from his pseudoscientific sex essentialist theory, in which he traces the development of allegedly "social darwinist" human behavior and sexuality directly from modern-day lobsters, conveniently ignoring cooperative behavioral models found in closer relatives such as primates.

    He also protested against the mandatory use of preferred pronouns, but only on "free speech" and personal convenience grounds. And somehow, he's willing to entertain a thought that sex=gender essentialism that allegedly held immutable for 350 million years (since human and lobster last shared an ancestor) may change in the near future to accommodate transgenders (but not women, heaven forbid!)

    And this gem:

    In discussing the many women who have criticized him, he has talked about how verbal disagreements commonly contain an implicit threat of violence, and about how such implicit threats are “forbidden” when men are addressing women.

    Riiiiight.