Yes, it's true: The editorial board of the New York Times has jumped on the women-are-so-sensitive-and-special-they-shouldn't-be-in-jail bandwagon.

I find this particular movement within feminism to be unusually odious, even by radical feminist standards. It is bad enough that feminists refuse to address the Accountability Gap between men and women - the gap that favors women so hugely ... but I can't think of a better way to say "we think men should be second-class relative to women" than to say "women are special and shouldn't be in prison for things they do, only men".

The Times, in this case, gets extra-special credit for being truly obnoxious:

Men account for more than 90 percent of those behind bars.

The Times, immediately after this one, single-sentence acknowledgement that incarceration impacts almost exclusively men then goes on for paragraphs arguing why the world must once again, yes, ignore men and fixate on women as the priority. In this case, pointing out that the American prison population is almost exclusively male, and then dropping that incredibly important topic and talking only about women, is on par with claiming that almost all military killed in our wars are men, then going on to talk about how reducing our KIA in the military should focus exclusively on women, because ... WOMEN!

The Times then goes onto to rationalize its idiocy by claiming that women are important to their families and so being in prison is extra-bad. We all know that it doesn't negatively impact the family when Dad goes to jail, right?!

And then the Times goes on about how women prisoners come from a background of abuse, often ... well has the New York Times editorial board ever pondered that a lot of men in jail ... have been abused as well?!! Or does abuse committed against boys who grow up to go jail not count because male suffering is irrelevant, or less legitimate than female suffering?!

The Editorial Board of the Times should be ashamed to have authored this hateful crap, and should cease advancing the supremacy goals of radical feminism. One has to wonder what sort of ideological blinders these dunderheads must be wearing in order to be blind to how sexist, vile, and frankly, vacuous, this piece was.

What's next? It should be against the law to fire women at work when they don't perform or do things that get men fired? Women get two votes each, whereas men get only one (or none, the feminists would love that)?

And why are we having to rely on publications like Breitbart to call out feminist supremacism where it exists? Why aren't supposedly more serious publications such as the New York Times able to present any sanity or balance on the gender war issue?

I will be composing my email to the Public Editor at the Times tonight, and I encourage you all to do the same. Incarceration, like homelessness, like addiction, like suicide, like the war on boys in schools, is a mens' issue. And it is time that the New York Times heard of this.