Filed under: Antibodies, gender pimps, Grab a shovel, PUKE, rape extinction
In a depressing revelation, I have come to realize most of my hits these days are coming from PEDOPHILES.
So guess what. I’m making a list for the little turds, most of them probably men of good standing in their communities who think there is nothing wrong with their little internet habits, just in case they’d ever had a shroud of doubt…
IF YOU SEARCH THE FOLLOWING TERMS FOR PORN YOU ARE DEFINITELY A PEDOPHILE:
little (body part) getting fucked/hammered/pounded/(insert violent term)
Yes, I’ve gotten all of these. In the past week.
IF YOU SEARCH THE FOLLOWING TERMS FOR PORN YOU ARE STILL DEFINITELY A PEDOPHILE:
No cookies for you. Just because you like girls fresh off the legal list! Disgusting.
Pedophiles are everywhere! Seriously, everywhere. If you are an older white man I already think you are a pedophile. Older white men are the first to go for the kiddos.
And anyways, back to the title of this post: just got a search for “older lisbians fucking young girls.” Don’t know if a lisbian is a lipstick lesbian or what but seriously nothing is off limits for these sickos. This is beginning to give me an idea for some cyber activism. Be back later…
Filed under: Antibodies, Grab a shovel, Interconnected!, PUKE, rape extinction
Amongst his many posts one can find several on sexual violence against women, anti-pornography, and rape culture. The particular incident for which he has plead guilty reads more like an act he would have taken to task than committed.
For all feminists, this story is yet another reminder of how pervasive the problem is. My heart goes out to the young woman involved and all her loved ones in this time of support. Understanding and coming to grips with the effects of sexual violation will be a difficult journey.
Kyle’s actions are repugnant, indeed hypocritical. That he has come to be somewhat of a smaller but useful blog amongst those fighting sexual violence in pornography and prostitution feels a bit of a slap in the face. I would hope people would not take this opportunity to mock and draw conclusions about other women bloggers by aligning this person with their work against sexual violence–work for which many often go poor and hungry. (but alas I am not dumb!–more comments on that in a bit)
I no more pretend that Kyle Payne’s actions speak for the volumes of other males identifying as feminists than it does for radical feminists. There are legit people who do legit work and lead legit lives with respect to ending violence against women.
However, I would like to make a statement about “male feminists” as I never have officially and I do have such opinions. I believe that there are males honestly and with good intentions doing work for women, supporting women, and engaging in feminist discussions. But the ones I feel most comfortable with do not tell me they are feminists. The name means little to nothing to them, the work means the world. Men claiming to be “feminists” actually kind of annoy me. It doesn’t mean the work they do isn’t important but it does signal to me a need to be accepted at a level for which they cannot/should not. They cannot know what it’s like to be a woman fighting her own oppression. To me, that is exactly what a feminist is.
And to that end, I would also like to comment on the males who claim to at least be allies of some sort to feminists bloggers: the many male commenter’s. Several times and places I have seen it: feminists are having a debate/argument on something they feel passionately about and men show up to mock, celebrate or indulge the differences/arguments. That this often goes without comment and more often with allegiance to the men commenter’s is unbelievably damaging in my opinion. No matter how nuanced and real the differences amongst women are they are still movement-stifling. Women have made some of their biggest and best strides when they band together. Men/Privilege showing up to laugh with other women at other women , thus celebrating the divisions, makes me ill. I don’t support it on this blog and that it goes without a peep on feminist blogs across bloglandia rather *astonishes* me.
The only reason I know about Kyle’s case is because I can be more often found reading women blogs for whom I do not always agree with than male bloggers–feminist or not. I seek different perspectives. I got male opinions on feminist issues in college and what a bore. Had I known sooner about this case I would have blogged about it sooner as I, nor any other radical feminist I can think of, would ever support these actions.
To those who have used this news (and will continue to) as a sort of bridge to *a whole bunch of other reasons why radical feminists are X*: not only are you annoyingly predictable (mischaracterizations: It’s what’s for breakfast) but you are also going to detract from the point of this case. Right now, there is a young woman having to make sense of an ugly situation. And there is a male blogger who needs to be held accountable for those who he has hurt and lied to. Continuing to show women have it in them to agree on solidarity in the face of such charges sends much better messages than using other women’s troubles as a platform for a tangential debate. I would much prefer to come together to take a stand against these actions than have it feed yet another pointless radical feminists vs. everyone else debacle.
***UPDATE*** The following information I received in e-mail from the journalist who covered Kyle’s story in the Iowa Independent:
Some individuals who have commented to the various postings on Payne have stated that he is scheduled to have an “open sentencing” on Aug. 11 at the Buena Vista County Courthouse, and that anyone who attends will have an opportunity to speak. This is not totally correct.
An “open sentencing” in the state of Iowa means that the public can attend, but not that the public can speak. While it always looks good to have people show up in support of the prosecution — and I’d personally really like to see some strong support in the courtroom — the fact is that not everyone is going to be able to speak.
For those who have a unique interest in the case… for instance, have served as advocates or can somehow speak with authority as to how horrible Payne’s actions were… get in touch with me.
If you want to share your (civil) thoughts about this incident prior to sentencing, your best bet is to write to the judge that will preside over the sentencing:
District Court Judge Don E. Courtney
Buena Vista County Courthouse
215 E Fifth St.
Storm Lake, IA 50588
As a final note, there has been some discussion about Payne being charged with child pornography. This is not a charge he faces from the state of Iowa.
– Lynda Waddington
Filed under: Antibodies, BloggingtheNO, gender pimps, Grab a shovel, Interconnected!, PUKE, rape extinction
Where has our “no” gone? (Trust this will become a huge theme for this blog henceforth)
It’s very difficult to fathom how powerful and incremental one word, one concept, can be to the sexual health and well-being of a civilization yet go so hushed and lost.
At the intersection of power, stigma, and sexual socialization there has been made an incredibly thriving market to the tune of billions of dollars and, what’s more willing worldwide participants, in the celebration-the orgasmic celebration if you will-of no “No.”
And what I am talking about is not limited to rape and sexual assault though they, of course, are some of the darkest manifestations of this. No–I am talking about the ubiquitous, ever-existential, concept of sexuality and how much of our sexuality has been formed on the erasure and undermining of “no.”
In sexual stigma p.1 there were two main points that I wanted to make clear:
1. Consent and sexual readiness has been presented to us, through marketing and media, to be a look-a set of features-embodied by women/girls. Thus creating a situation wherein, if the “look” is present, the sexual meaning is implied. When sexual meaning is implied the first layer of consideration for the women’s interest in being considered sexual by another, as well as her legal ability to even be so, is removed. A layer of “no” is gone.
2. We are being conditioned to find people sexually attractive and ready in way that is supposed to be against our will. From early ages we are presented a set of sexual norms that we are supposed to want yet what we are supposed to *not* want is most sexualized. Thus our capitulation and lack of control is sexualized. Thus we perceive our own responsibility and agency as a bit of a continuum–vulnerable to change given how desirable we find the subject. As the stigmas normalize and mainstream our ability to achieve this same arousing effect diminishes. We are now searching out new sexual ways to breach our own will.
Exactly how many ways can one say Rape Culture?
But let’s not stop there.
Stigma, sometimes called “taboo,” has an even an more problematic function. Due to the language and politics surrounding sexual norms vs. stigma, stigma has become synonymous with liberating/sexual freedom/sexual autonomy. To engage in a taboo/stigma is often seen as engaging in a more sexually free activity. It’s a pseudo-freedom dichotomy: the sexual norms are pushed in a way that is so forceful and exaggerated (by no-fun, questionable institutions no less: schools, religion, family) that by the time someone has gone through all the emotional and psychological , if not societal, shaming to finally partake in the stigma who can blame them for feeling freer?
And don’t get it twisted: we know who bears the brunt of this shaming.
However, the problem here is that we have created a very protected, hot tempered situation wherein no one can really challenge stigmas without being viewed as a censurer/personal-liberties-destroyer. To question the stigmas is to question sexual freedom by default of the norms vs. stigma system. (How free are we really if we can’t even question without being insulted?)
Moreover, the sexual stigma is not viewed (wrongfully) as originating from any sort of institution or official entity–we just say it’s there, it’s how we feel and when asked to possibly locate the origins/roots of this one is often presented with some very sexist primitive science (usually funded by The Right) or told it doesn’t matter, consenting adults, so who cares.
Funny that we, as feminists, often have no problem discussing the origins of the sexual norms adults engage in–most likely because they originate from The Right and we have no quibbles questioning them. Double standard much?
(Anticipated misreading number 1*: I am not saying I anymore agree with the current sexual norms than I disagree with the sexual stigmas–I think the whole system is bunk. My point is to express how these intersecting dynamics destroy so much of what is needed in the foundations of consent.)
The other thing is: stigma is mainstream. As in, it’s mainstream for us to have stigmas. The norms vs. stigma system is the mainstream. But when taboo is spoken about, when people who participate in stigma come forth they are regarded as sexual revolutionaries, as if they are challenging mainstream on a ground breaking level. This celebration means we continue to reward almost any deviating behavior, or make excuses for it, in such a way that removes critical analysis. As well, those who choose to participate in more sexual norms are considered boring, humdrum, or same ole same ole.
(Anticipated misreading number 2*: I do not mean deviating as all bad–I speak of any deviation from the norm, with no necessary value judgment)
What I find so immensely troubling is the defense and/or apologetic attitudes towards systems, ideas, even said “sexual revolutionaries” who defend sexual stigmas meant to control, ostracize, harm, and shame women. Such examples would be the use of terms such as slut, prude, whore, virgin in pornography or role play. Such examples would include rape and/or child rape simulation. Such examples would include sexual practices depending on uneven power distributions.
Now really: If you have to suspend the disbelief that your sexual partner is a child to get off then how invested are you in perpetuating a better consent model? And a world without child porn, pedophilia, predatory behavior etc.
If you have to suspend the disbelief that your sexual partner is a whore/good little girl (re:sexual shaming tactic) to get off then how invested are you in perpetuating a better consent model? And a world where women aren’t categorized, turned away in rape trials, prostitutes murdered without a second glance, etc.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again and again and again: if you must suspend the disbelief that your sexual partner is not consenting to get off then please tell me how possibly invested you are in a better model of consent.
(Ironically many who are vocal about the harm of rape jokes somehow go quite silent critiquing rape based orgasms…)
If we don’t want the stigma then we don’t want the stigma, right? This two way game we are trying to pull off wherein we want women respected in the general world but must pretend otherwise in the bedroom is pretty unbelievable. What kind of disconnect are we embarking on that says harmful sexual stigmas against women are sooo awful until we decide to be sexual?
“Women are not sluts until you want to get off on the idea that one of them is!”
Nope. Sorry. Failed logic. Not my fault, I didn’t invent the game.
But to the supporters and players and apologists and creators of the game: ps–it’s. not. fucking. working.
*I anticipate several other misreadings should they decide to comment. I will number them accordingly.
Filed under: Antibodies, Grab a shovel, PUKE, rape extinction, YourFundsAtWork
Georgia is stupid. It’s a Red State of all things (for my non US readers read: Republican, George Bush Lovin’, Good Ole Boys).
And Georgia men? Puh– I’ve known enough of them to know the one thing they cherish more than Dale Earnhardt stickers and a mile high truck lift is a virgin (white preferable).
Have you heard? (feministing.com) Sure you have! You know the drill feminists–get out your “I am officially un-rape-able” book–you know the one where you logged the info of all the people you’ve ” ever dated, or engaged in any sexual activity with, including their names, dates of interaction, and contact information.”
According to one Judge in Bibb County Georgia (other county names in Georgia include: Butts, Coffee), this sort of info is pertinent to determine one’s ability to have refused a sexual encounter (even a drugged one!). Your past sexual history can actually prove consent in a future sexual/possibly sexual encounter. Transferrable consent!
Like rollover minutes or something.
Of course the defining factor in this Georgia case is that the young woman was not a virgin. Not only that she had the audacity to accuse a young man on a high rung of the patriarchy: “the son of state Rep. Burke Day, whose family founded the Days Inn hotel chain.”
Maybe the Bibb Judge is just trying to get him a lifetime guaranteed stay at Days Inn? (I love me some Days Inn ya’ll!). For why else would he, after dismissing the woman’s two sexual violence claims on accounta prior hymen removal, also fine her $150,000 for wasting the court’s time with such a second class citizen??
Here is the fine Judge’s info:
Judge S. Phillip Brown
601 Mulberry Street
310 Bibb County Courthouse
Macon, GA 31201
Work Phone: 478-621-6328
Go ahead and send him all that information you’ve been keeping about every single person you’ve ever dated and/or had sexual contact with. Maybe if he already has it on file you will at least avoid the 150K fine.
This post comes from a comment I made at Heart’s regarding sex tort law where Marco Randazza, porn industry lawyer as he accepts, makes a very common case for his First Amendment Crusades (comment section).
I am so shameless that I thought the comment deserved its own post. Not because I am brilliant (the gossip mill tells me so!) but because I think I may have addressed the issue in a way which I haven’t before and I do feel it’s worth repeating.
Mr. Randazza’s comments are quoted. I have copy/pasted directly.
“I’d ask you to show me the “harm” that any of my adult entertainment clients have “inflicted” upon anyone.” &
“in the battle to protect free expression.”
I never tire of my own dismay at these attitudes.
First of all, free expression does not exist. Expression does not exist without a cost–we really need to stop using this phrase, it is harmful in and of itself. Abusive even. We remove too much of our critical sensibilities with the idea of “free” and thus violators and abusers can move covertly in and out of our lives whilst committing sizable damage we can no more account for than understand.
The question of expression’s costs, as far as “harm” is concerned, really becomes: at whose expense?
And the question of expense, afaic, is one of the most unique aspects of porn’s role in people’s lives. Because, typically, we measure the harm of a product or service on the end user–or porn user in this case. And while there *is* evidence of porn’s measurable effect on the brain (or, for those more skeptical, please visit any University Marketing Department where students study how to affect people’s buying habits with *images*), the real *harm* can be seen in the True end user: the person on whom the porn viewer uses to act out their porn viewing habits. This of course, comes full circle as the industry continues to force girls and women into pornography to satiate the porn users’ demand. This harm is absolutely *immeasurable*: violence, rape, death.
But see we don’t even have the first end user covered. How often must we hear from a porn producer “I just make the porn”? That’s certainly not the full story. We would not accept from from a pharmacist “I just fill the prescription.” No, there is well known and accounted for legal recourse one may take if their medicine negatively affects their body (especially if the effects are not mentioned as a possibility in taking the medication). Porn producers saying “I make scenes and images that affect the porn user’s sexuality” is more accurate. And yet porn comes with no warning label: “Warning–consuming these images will likely make you view your wife, girlfriend, significant other, daughter, sister, female colleagues, or any random female person in public as a sex object for you to use and abuse.”
The harm is already evident. We don’t have to go far to see how men view women’s bodies and their access to them. *What other* multi-billion dollar industry so intimately represents men’s relationship to women’s bodies as does the porn and sex industries?
At one point do we see this connection? At what point do we recognize that the acts in porn are the same as the acts women and girls are being forced/pressured/asked to do in the streets to survive, in marriages to prevent infidelity, in relationships to feel worthy?
A man coming to a woman-centered blog asking *us* to show him the harm “inflicted” (clever word to use here, as “inflicted” has implications of immediacy–as if porn’s harm is the equivalent to poking someone in the eye) reeks of more privilege than I can express.
Mr. Randazza, if you have any honest intentions to understand the expenses, the costs, the harms of pornography use on society I would urge you reconsider your not returning and hang around a while.
Filed under: Antibodies, BloggingtheNO, gender pimps, Grab a shovel, Interconnected!, rape extinction
This world has got some serious hots for the tots.
I present you sexeee anecdote: when I was 2 I had chubalicious baby fat, the kind that fell in rolls down my legs and arms. My hair was short and whitish blonde. I had a drooly mouth cuz I chewed on everything. And because I wasn’t some prodigy-pooper I was bottom heavy in a diaper like all my tot friends.
Honestly, I don’t know what kept me from landing leading roles in child porn or being married off only a few years later. Hawt-Eeeee!
Being anti child porn is sorta like the ultimate DUH, isn’t it? Duh! Who the fuck says they are down with child porn? And yet, our country/world can’t keep its creepy hands off of them. So what’s the dealiyo?
Before you answer let us journey an an experiment.
Which of the following images are acceptable for an adult man to be sexually attracted to/aroused by?
Hopefully, for legal reasons you said none (they are all under 16!). And of course, the law doesn’t say “don’t be sexually attracted to such and such age” because who finds what sexually attractive is unknown until that person acts on it. But the message is pretty clear: kids can’t consent so their rapings and molestations are not game for your genital fondles.
Images 1 and 2 were obvious, hopefully. They are children so clear as day. But what about images 3 & 4? Seriously. What’s the difference between these images and countless twenty somethings? Or vice versa. What’s the difference between these images and countless images of women meant to be sexually attractive for adult men (legally)?
The only degree of separation is age. Yet age hardly means anything when men are being conditioned to *images*–the looks, the expressions, the posturing, the body proportions, the facial structures/features. Not to mention all these different elements (body proportions, facial features, expressions, etc) are not age specific–plenty of females from about 14-30 can pull this off (and sometimes those limits get much younger/older).
With the ongoing and successful attempt by media and advertising to infantilize over 18 females and hypersexualize the underage, who here is surprised to learn that pedophilia and predatory men are a frickin’ pandemic?
I know I’m a bit of a sell out for using the Miley Cyrus image for the poor girl is the now the face of the weird daddy-daughter complex and that must feel wretched. But that’s not even the part the makes my head spin the most. Nor is the part where I tell Annie Leibovitz straight up she has the artistic merit of a foam cup: cheap and bad for the environment. Or the part where I ask Mr. & Mrs. Cyrus wtf were they thinking!? (also fodder for the comments: what do my readers think of licensing parents?)
And don’t get me wrong: all that stuff is fuuuuucked (and I’m happy to repeat as much in comments for those who misread me). But you know what really gets me going? How the adults are reacting.
First of all, Disney Parents, Miley does not owe you and/or your Disney prince/princesses an apology–she’s 15, she is still a legal child.
Second of all, it’s not her fault. How, pray tell, is a person ( a child no less!) to be sexualized without someone being the one to sexualize her. Excuse my agenda for a second, but these pictures would not be sexy or sexual if women’s bodies were not appropriated. Period! They are sexual because of conditioning, not innateness, so that actually makes it the sexualizer’s fault–not Miley’s. Adults are uncomfortable for a reason they will not admit to: they see those images and they sexualize her and it makes them (rightly!) feel wrong.
But never mind all these 14 and 15 and 16 and 17 year old almost-legals feeling the predatory burden that is passing-for-legal-sexyay-woman. Some people don’t even want toddler knocks offs, like 10 year olds or something. They want the real deal. You remember images 1 & 2 up there? The obviously-too-young? Yeah, seems they don’t even need mussed hair and make up to get their sexy on. Roll Clip!
(Actually for this next portion you’ll need to follow this link because I cannot get the video to embed for some reason. Seriously watch it!) -Via oneangrygirl.net.
So as you see, there is also a huge and increasing demand for *really young* girls.
…I’m wondering how long it would take to normalize “toddler-plants”: plastic surgery for all us free-choicin’-women to get body reductions so we are 3 feet tall, our flesh all bubbled out, with puffy cheeks and baby teeth inserts (cuz the rest will be knocked out during this highly individualistic-empowerfullized operation). Maybe even some saliva injections to get that that drool factor going again (ooo la la)…
One would think, what with the steady supply of images wherein preteen and teen girls are flashing their grade school bums on myspace pages or humping boys/each other in music videos, that the predators urges would finally be kept at bay. But lo, we have more and more men getting caught with child porn or raping young girls, as well as younger and younger girls being forced into the sex/rape trade.
We need to keep in mind: pedophilia is not just a need/desire to molest children, it is the very strong obsession to commit a sexually stigmatized act– here the root being the stigma, the branch being children.
Stigma for all general purposes arises from a normalization of some kind-acceptable standards- wherein outliers to these standards are the stigma (bad, wrong, illegal). These standards tend to come from or are heavily influenced by our religious and government institutions as well as our media.
While religious and government entities set up a set of sexual circumstances we are to follow (and usually referencing some BS book known as The Bible) the media/advertising industries then take the outliers to these standards and sexualize them for profit. The point being to create a very powerful buying stimulus wherein our desires are strictly tied to feeling bad, naughty, taboo. Some people forget that these feelings -disgust, dirty, wrong-are all very powerful and arousing as well. Couple these stigma-stimuli with the naturally and physically enjoyable feeling of being aroused/orgasming and voila!: we have created a huge demand for sexual stigma. One very few admit to –because what would be the fun if it wasn’t as sneaky, or mischievous?
(And perhaps now we can explain why all these religious men go nuts for kids–they get the added stimulus of thinking they are going to hell for their sexual activities. A mind-blowing orgasm for sure)
The thing is media and advertising are not stagnant industries. They are continuously shifting to keep this stigma satiated by sensationalism and new sexually “naughty” ventures. What we once thought was too young for presenting-as-sexual to men is now normalized through overexposure and must move on to keep the public interested (re: buying). It is time for a new set of girls, younger, more wrong.
In this process we have ensured a whole new generation will not escape the fate of this destructive crossfire, that our daughters and sisters will feel this violence at much younger ages, ages so formative that these experiences will live on in them forever. What’s more, we are teaching men that they are monsters, uncontrollable, sexual deviates whose sexually stigmatized acts should be celebrated.
This sickness is contagious and growing and the system is in place. Our countries, our world–we have created a Pedo-Mill.
(This post spirals off the last one.)
Okay, so here is the scene: you are in a porn debate-the usual characters ablaze- and someone says this:
“Yes, I agree there is misogynistic porn but not ALL of it is misogynistic. I don’t agree with the stuff that’s abusive and exploitative…”
(you gotta love the middle-grounders, usually showing up like omnipresent peace-keepers because they’ve found a way to be “nonextremists!”)
So here is what I need to know: is anyone else ever confused by this? The “there’s good stuff and then there’s bad stuff” point (?). And just try to getting out of them what actually constitutes the “bad stuff”:
“You know, that stuff that degrades women”
No, the question is” what acts, what scene, what scenarios–how do you *know* it is degrading to women?”
So the wishy-washer finally takes a stab (thinking of total-worst-thing-ever, the always-misogyinistic-porn-no-matter-how-you-slice-it):
“Like, let’s say the guy pushed the girl down and beats her to a pulp and then calls her a whore and then holds her head down while he pushes a barbed dildo inside her mouth–while kicking her…then calls her a bitch…then he shoots her…”
(ummmm…??) ::::Silence::::: ensues as radfems momentarily accept the raised bar: now there are guns–even sex pozzes are a little surprised (*note: someone somewhere, however, wants to know where they can find this remarkable wankage footage). A few wan fence-jumpers comment “yeah, so not nice!” (And for a split of a split-second we have this smokescreen of agreement–cue dream sequence: Radfems and sex pozzes dust off the old champange bottles…kumbai gets pushed on the 8 track…the smell of glory…
Because hold on one minute!
Long-time-lurker-Lucy-whose-about-to-make-her-first-comment-ever! just has to say something. You see, she’s been reading this thread, and she is a feminist too and she and her boyfriend did this very thing last night! (She’s got the bullet wound to prove it!) And you know what?
She *chooses* to do this. She wakes up every morning as a free agent with no abuse history and all these options and she *chooses* this. So now what beeetches??!
Welllllll “fuck!” Nice while it lasted, right?
Because we can’t question this person and, invariably, this porn because there is now proof someone can *choose* this type of sexual exchange. Aren’t we now diminishing this woman’s choice somehow? Is it possible for a woman contribute to, or participate in, a misogynistic act that is simultaneously chosen *and* orgasmic (bc. thats.never.happened).
And you and I both know, it doesn’t matter how awful/unhealthy/misogynistic the porn sounds/seems we are talking about–there will *always* be someone to show up with their power play and choice mantras (talking about sex like it’s a fucking magic trick: Consent–now you see it, now you don’t! TaDa!) to defend it.
The point I am getting at is: What’s choice got to do with misogyny? Seriously. As far as I’m concerned the only porn I’m even willing to discuss is the stuff people have consented to/made a choice to do–anything else is rape/molestation footage and I’d prefer it be in the hands of the authorities. Misogyny and choice are NOT trade-offs. Misogyny is essentially a prejudice and can be be blatantly fricking obvious or as covert as a timid bigot. But it does not end or begin at choice.
So because I feel misogyny is more than just choice and that the two are not mutually exclusive it means I am saying misogynistic porn has to be determined from a *message* standpoint only. We have to be willing to ask why people are doing what they are doing, what dynamic it relies on and how it got there in the first place. It does NOT mean I am saying the actors have not exercised “choice” (fly fly away red-herring) But it *does mean* that I am, even indirectly, accusing a woman of engaging in a form of hate speech and, again indirectly, calling her choice a poor one. And shouldn’t I, all feminist-and-shiz, be so utterly blown-over that this woman made a *choice* that I cease discussion?
And my answer is no.