Twitter mob attacks female journalist for refusing to call herself a feminist.

[–]Goat-headed-boy 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 28 points29 points30 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dronelisk 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tikitikitikiroom 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakru 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tikitikitikiroom 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tikitikitikiroom 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scarecrow569_ 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I do not support abortion unless it's happening to save the life of the mother; I'm on the fence about abortions that happen because the baby is not likely to survive birth (I can't bring myself to condemn parents who make that choice - I have no idea what I would do myself). This is not because I'm some kind of religious zealot; I am a Christian, but in all honesty that doesn't have anything to do with my views on this topic (which probably sounds like b.s., I understand!). I am against abortion because I don't support taking human life unless it's in self-defense. Everything I have studied about embryonic/fetal development over the years has made it obvious that we are human right from conception, and that we are demonstrably alive from early on in pregnancy. And I'm not using crappy biased pro-life sources, either; I prefer to just stick with the most reliable science I can find. This is my favourite resource; they are committed to remaining ethically neutral, and they are trustworthy enough that even National Geographic uses their material in its DVD on prenatal development. I had one woman tell me "well obviously Nat. Geo has an agenda!" Ha ha, what a derp. Anyway, I can't in good conscience agree with killing another human being because you don't want to be burdened by their existence...very few situations justify killing them (like when your very life is at risk if the pregnancy continues). I don't think that babies are a punishment for having sex. I don't think that women or men should be punished for having sex! But I also don't think that the woman is more important than her unborn child, or that her wants matter so much that they are even more important than the very life of the human being she carries. I think it's stupid when people compare pregnancy to slavery or to forced organ donation. It drives me insane when people act like pregnancy is not a direct result of the decision to have sex and therefore you should not be expected to carry to term - every choice we make leads to some kind of result in our lives, especially sex (which is why we have so many kinds of birth control), and not wanting to be a parent, not wanting to have to live with your choice, does not make it morally acceptable to kill. (obviously that does not apply to rape victims, as the choice was forced on them by their attacker - though their babies are just as human and just as alive as babies conceived consensually)

I think that women should all have ready and affordable access to things like Plan B, so that if they are raped or otherwise at risk of an unwanted pregnancy, they can prevent it from ever happening in the first place and won't need an abortion. I think that comprehensive sex ed should be standard for all students, so that they know how birth control works, how pregnancy happens, how human fertility works, how the female cycle works, etc. I think that girls and women should have ready access to all forms of birth control and that doctors or pharmacists who will not help a woman or girl get some form of birth control if she requests it should lose their license for being a putz who cares more about their beliefs than about the rights of their patients. I think that there needs to be a better social support system in place for women to be able to keep their babies and provide for them - they need all the help they can get, and you can't tell a woman not to have an abortion and then kick her to the curb all alone with a baby...that is asinine but sadly, it's what a lot of pro-lifers in the US advocate and it makes me want to scream. I think the way adoption is handled stinks, and that the entire system needs to be revamped along with the foster care system.

I have never been involved in a protest and do not plan on doing so. I think waving signs outside of a clinic is useless and ultimately won't help anyone. There are better ways to help.

If you made it through all that you deserve a cookie!

[–]Revoran 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that sounds like a very reasonable position (and not the stereotypical fundie Christian pro life position, either). Thanks for taking the time to type all that.

I have similar feelings myself. I guess the only thing you didn't answer is your political views on abortion - whether it should be legal and if so what kinds of abortion / in what circumstances should it be legal.

Personally I'm kind of on the fence about whether it should be legal. On the one hand, if we judge personhood by intelligence then it makes sense to allow killing of newborns (since a newborn is not much more intelligent or aware than a late-stage fetus). Most people are not comfortable with that.

At lot of areas allow early abortions but ban particularly late ones, which presents the problem of on what day, at what hour, does someone officially become a "person" with a right to life?

In addition, banning abortion presents all sorts of problems too, since many people will continue to have them illegally (dangerous backyard abortions), or attempt to induce a miscarriage - it also creates the problem of arresting women for miscarriages if you suspect they were intentionally caused. I'm not really sure what is the greater evil - allowing abortion legally or banning it but creating other problems (and possibly not even stopping the abortions anyway)?

I kind of compare it to drugs - I don't want people becoming drug addicts or misusing drugs, but at the same time I believe that prohibition of drugs is a failed policy that is actually causing more harm than good.

I agree that education and access to birth control / contraception is paramount, and that the anti-sex position of fundies is stupid and wrong.

[–]wanked_in_space 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wanked_in_space 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Patriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's not much of a philosophical question, really, more of the end result of decades of dehumanization campaigns fuzzying up the answer itself. If this were the early 1900s, there'd be as much so-called philosophical debate on just how close to being human black, yellow, and red people really are compared to the glorious and expansionist white inheritors of the world.

Nowadays, you'll be hard pressed to find someone willing to publicly espouse "Well, yes, I do believe that minorities are inferior to human beings, i.e. whites." It's simply accepted as self-evident and obvious that anyone who is a human being is... well, a fellow human being.

So explain to me why it wasn't so self-evident back in the last century?

Except... before you answer that, let me state a simple fact:

There has been an essentially unanimous agreement in all the relevant sciences that human life begins at fertilization, the point where the two cloned, that is to say non-unique, carrier gametes (the sperm and ovum) merge into one unique zygote. Which, in almost all successful cases of impregnation, occurs two weeks after insemination.

This was common sense, a big "duh" in all the contemporary literature, up until Justice Blackmun stated that nobody (excluding all the experts, of course) really knew when human life began, so who are we to prevent abortion on those grounds? (See also: Roe vs Wade.)

And what we've experienced since then has been a massive campaign, largely feminist driven, of trying to prove that embryonic humanity is subjective, not objective; comparatively, that black humans aren't really human any more if we change the legal definition of human to specifically exclude them. (We've actually done something similar to this in the past, by the way.)

Moreso, what we have here is people talking in circles around each other to obfuscate the issue, to prevent common sense from ever kicking in. It's hard to talk about the issue when everybody has to talk around the issue.

For one example, consider:

Abortion is the noncrime of killing a non-human being during its fetal stage.

Feticide is the crime of killing the same human being during the same fetal stage.

Both exist side by side in US (and most other country's) law. Indeed, if you read the text of the feticide laws, you see several hundred occurrences of the hasty clarification "except in the case of abortion."

It would seem that we already agree that they're unquestionably human, except when their humanity is in question, of course. And since nobody can agree (except for those guys whose livelihood is built on determining things like this, but ignore them) we'll have to agree to agree to what I said in disagreement.

I present a likely scene from 2113, to mirror this current scene:

"So... quick question, are human beings human beings, even when they're fetuses? I'm kidding you, I ain't no ageist, but no shit, they actually thought like that back then. Oh, and did you know that before that, black human beings only counted as 3/5s of a human being? Man, our ancestors were fucking stupid. Good thing we're better in every way compared to them."

"Oh, by the way, where do you stand on the Martian-Born Human Rights Act? I figure since they were born on Mars to the first human colonists, they're technically martians, not humans, and don't really count as human beings deserving any human rights. Except of course when someone murders your martian-born slave, and good thing we have martiocide laws to protect their human rights then."

[–]The_Patriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Your general attitude, and the information you're presenting as if it's undeniable fact, leads me to suspect you're getting most of your information from pro-life propaganda. I'd strongly recommend that you expand your horizons beyond that which is trying to overtly manipulate you for political ends.

It's not much of a philosophical question, really, more of the end result of decades of dehumanization campaigns fuzzying up the answer itself. If this were the early 1900s, there'd be as much so-called philosophical debate on just how close to being human black, yellow, and red people really are compared to the glorious and expansionist white inheritors of the world.

Nowadays, you'll be hard pressed to find someone willing to publicly espouse "Well, yes, I do believe that minorities are inferior to human beings, i.e. whites." It's simply accepted as self-evident and obvious that anyone who is a human being is... well, a fellow human being.

So explain to me why it wasn't so self-evident back in the last century?

Except, abortion was legal in colonial America as long as it was done before the "quickening", which is the moment the mother can feel the fetus kicking/etc. in the womb (which usually happens partway through the second trimester). Prior to that point in development, it wasn't considered "human life". Here's what James Wilson, a Framer of the US Constitution had to say on the matter you'd dismiss so quickly as modern rhetoric:

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.

Source: "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals", Wilson 1790

There has been an essentially unanimous agreement in all the relevant sciences that human life begins at fertilization

No, there hasn't...unless you redefine "relevant" to mean "religious", and "sciences" to mean "quackery".

Here's what geneticist and textbook-author Dr. Ricki Lewis has to say, in response to someone saying roughly the same as you:

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

You should read the whole thing.

I'm not really interested in wasting my time on the rest of your wall of distortions and misunderstandings. Someone else might have the patience for that, but not me.

[–]Mitschu 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

contemporary literature of the sciences

First source to disprove that scientists and doctors from the 1970s had a good idea of when life began is a legal writeup from a non-medical expert from back in 1790. (I think you transposed a digit there.)

Second source is from 2013, from someone who insists that nobody can really tell when human life begins, but that he's happy drawing the line at "once it can survive outside the body of another" anyway, despite just saying that he doesn't know.

Your 17 timepoints of when a human life begins is just 17 points along the human development cycle that has no relevance to when human life begins. I would point out that you could add more stages to it easily enough by tracking development outside of the embryo, but point 15 "Birth", 16 "Puberty", and 17 itself, "When they get accepted into medical school", already makes that point for me, somewhat tongue in cheek.

Are you actually aware that you just linked to something that snarkily stated that human life doesn't begin until at least after puberty as part of your argument against me that human life doesn't begin at fertilization?

Or that your own source points out that experimenting on human embryos is unethical after the same period of time I outlined?

I'll add that to my roster, though, it's a good anti-abortion addition. Abortion is okay because they're not really humans, but infanticide and experimenting on humans after 2 weeks is medically and legally immoral.

Let's check on some of the contemporary specialists of the times, though:

Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL and pro-abortion advocate wrote this in 1974:

"There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole."

The same doctor goes on to say about Roe vs Wade:

"Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun's abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun's conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and embryology, and that's a dangerous way to win."

Clark Edward Corliss, author of "Patten's Human Embryology" wrote in 1976:

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Then there's 1974's "Biological Principles and the Modern Practice of Obstetrics":

"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops."

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

There's "Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant", 1975:

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

But don't ask them, they're just contemporary experts tainted by religious quackery.

How about the "Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981" which was a collective of medical experts all pointing out the same thing - that the beginning of human life was already known, in disagreement with the Roe vs Wade conclusion that it couldn't be known?

Do you know what the Senate decided after reading that report? This is the US Senate, mind you, the same folks that shoehorned in Roe vs Wade in the first place.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

Which is it, Senate? Can nobody know since the experts cannot reach a consensus, or is there overwhelming agreement from the experts?

Or if you prefer, we can stick to the late 1700s / early 1800s, if you so prefer, back when your Wilson insisted that quickening was the start of human life.

Oh, wait, the American Medical Association declared in 1857 that "popular ignorance [states] that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening." and that human life was objective fact, not subjective to qualification.

Hrm, should I trust the American Medical Association's stance on the matter, or an uninformed politician's stance on the matter? Hrm... deja vu.

There are countless hundred of thousands of sources from before Roe vs Wade that declare that it is self evident that human life begins at fertilization. Million of medical, scientific, and legal writings on the matter. Some weigh in from philosophers and religious folk, too.

You should read them.

[–]The_Patriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Your 17 timepoints of when a human life begins is just 17 points along the human development cycle that has no relevance to when human life begins.

You clearly did not read the article.

Are you actually aware that you just linked to something that snarkily stated that human life doesn't begin until at least after puberty

Because you skimmed the article instead of actually reading it, you've made obvious errors like this one.

Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL and pro-abortion advocate wrote

You conveniently left out that he was a well-known Catholic pro-life activist.

marks the initiation of the life of a new individual [...] from which a new living being develops

Bacteria is alive too, that doesn't mean it's philosophically or morally the same as human life. The dispute I outlined above is about whether or not that small collection of cells can is the same sort of life as a human, not whether or not it is in fact a collection of cells.

Hrm, should I trust the American Medical Association's stance on the matter, or an uninformed politician's stance on the matter? Hrm... deja vu.

Except I quoted him to refute your point that the dispute outlined above was only modern. Your point is completely irrelevant and only highlights the fact that you don't read SHIT, you just skim.

You should read them.

You should work on your reading-comprehension skills before wasting my time with more of this Gish-galloping drivel.

[–]Mitschu -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If we're going to descend into personal attacks, I must say:

I'm not really interested in wasting my time on the rest of your wall of distortions and misunderstandings. Someone else might have the patience for that, but not me.

Followed by:

^[everything you just said in reply to my latest so-called wall of distortions and misunderstandings.]

I must confess, this level of disconnect between "declared intentions" and "actual actions" from a pro-abortionist doesn't shock me anymore. Oh, and I know, the rationalization hamster is full tilt now, "That implication only applied to the first wall of text that was beneath me, I never said explicitly that I wouldn't reply to other walls of text that are also beneath me that are in direct continuation to the wall of text I just declared beneath me!" Shh shh shh, little hamster. You said that you didn't have time to waste on me, then went and proceeded to waste more time on me. Them be the facts.

Although I must also add that I'm pleased that you didn't tuck tail and stalk away haughtily, because it would be rather unfortunate when you have a chance to change people's minds (maybe not mine, but anyone else reading) for you to consider it a waste of time.

Frankly, I couldn't care how asinine your arguments are or will be - arguing against them isn't something I do for your benefit and convenience, nor do I consider stomping down on hypocrisy and lies to ever be a waste of time.

Let's get one other thing out of the way - for all that you keep trying to poison the well by dragging in vague references to muh religions as a response to everything I present, I just want to clarify that I'm an atheist. I could give less than a single flying fuck about what a supposed invisible ghost voyeur in the sky thinks about my actions.

There, now that we've got the unpleasantries out of the way, let us continue with the actual argument. Unless... am I wasting your time?

Where to begin - well, your 17 timepoints of human life is as good a start as any. Firstly, it isn't my job to interpret the data you present the same as you, only to read the data as it is presented. The fact that both of us reached different conclusions from it doesn't necessarily indicate that one of us didn't read it - merely that one of us didn't understand it.

I mean, sure, it is possible that one of us lacks reading comprehension and / or is willfully selecting data to fulfill personal bias; but given that one of us is quoting directly from the other's source and the other has deigned to ignore to the other's references to several leading experts of the time... going the bad faith route doesn't look good for ya, sport.

Especially when you call out my "forgetting" to mention that Nathanson ~~was~~ became a Catholic pro-life activist when that holds no relevance to the stance he professed back when he was a pro-abortion activist and, incidentally, a Jewish atheist.

Ah, didn't actually read up on his history, did ya? Tsk tsk.

Interestingly enough, he is on record for saying that abortion is "the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States." Ya know, if we're going to call his professed religious views and credential biases into question, I think I'd trust a Jew to spot a holocaust. It is blackly humorous that you find his later conversion to Catholicism damning against him, but discount his Semite heritage. I think that demographic might have some prior experience in that regard...

But we're diverging from the point on an amusing footnote - back to the 15 16 er 17 timepoints.

Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions. Rather, textbooks list the characteristics of life, leaving interpretation to the reader.

That is the crux of his argument. That life doesn't define biology, but that biology defines life. That life, far be it from simply the state of living, is subjective to personal interpretation.

Remember when I stated that pro-abortion advocates always talk around the issue instead of about the issue? You know, before you linked that article? Let's resample that for other people who put subjective qualifications on human life.

Human life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGuffaw-Hillbilly) don’t explicitly state when black humanity begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions. Rather, textbooks list the characteristics of human life, leaving interpretation of black humanity to the reader.

Well, yes, "Are black really people human?" is a question not just of biology, but also of philosophy, politics, psychology, technology, and... no, wait. Biology is pretty damn clear on that one. Yep, black people are human beings, no question about it, even if some unnamed and uncited politician cum computer technician cum religious leader wants to argue against the classification.

Even if you're living in 1870, and you own two hundred black slaves that don't have legal rights or representation, they're still humans, even if people keep insisting "no they ain't, the law's clear on it. They my property, nothin' more."

Biology has made it rather exactly blunt, "humanity" isn't a subjective value that can be modified depending on how much you approve the other party. Humanity is the binary state of either being biologically a human being, or not being biologically a human being.

Which ties into the first goalpost movement - your "Bacteria is alive too" statement.

Firstly, how dumb are you? Seriously, your argument boils down to "It's okay to kill cold germs, so by the same token I should be allowed to murder my fellow human beings." You know, since it's not about whether or not my fellow human beings are human beings, but whether or not they're the same sort of human beings.

You're doing the whole "talk around" thing now, too. What does the "sort" of human life have to do with human beinghood? If we're sorting, what about the black sort? What about the white sort? What about the Catholic sort? The Muslim sort? What about the developmental sort (a stage we don't leave until around 25, biologically speaking, but which begins when we first become diploids?)

And ya know, if random bacteria could spontaneously and autonomously grow into unique human beings if left alive long enough, that argument might hold a little water. But to make that kind of argument here, in the real world where wiping your nose and flushing the tissue isn't mass genocide against human beings, presents a bewildering amount of ignorance about how biology actually determines and classifies things for someone trying to base their argument from a biological standpoint.

A human zygote, nee embro, nee fetus, nee being, is not a non-human foreign bacterial invader of the human body. You might make that argument from a metaphorical stance for spermatozoa, if you're willing to ignore that sperm aren't and have never been classified as bacteria to make it...

Achoo! Sorry, hope you didn't catch pregnant from that.

Finally, the last point you raise, harkening back to your 1790 example of a "contemporary" piece comparable to the 1970s. I can't even begin to explain how... blind that is.

You're quoting as your expert a man who never studied biology and was in fact born over a hundred years before cell theory (the foundation of modern biology) was even invented; and then using his example of mistaken vitalist thinking to discount the "modern" stance (except, if you had read what I written regarding the AMA writeup from the 1850s, from the actual experts at the time, not the uninformed politicians of the time; you'd know that their "popular ignorance" statement wasn't a compliment or sign of agreement) on when human life begins.

Well, yes, in that sense, the dispute over human life is only modern. Human life as we understand it now was only defined about 200 years ago! Before that, we thought a spark of essence was necessary to life, and that this soul spark could animate anything and turn it into a living being! Vitalism theory, the prevalent theory of the 1800s, in a nutshell! Thank you, but I'll stick to my derided "only modern" biological science!

Gish-gallop. Haha! Stay classy all you want, but the less pretentious name for that is tl;dr. You don't have to refute all of my points, if you think I'm running on hot air, but it'd be helpful if you could refute at least one of them. Arguing that humanity is a philosophical debate, then swapping to it being a biological debate, then swapping to it being a semantic debate on definitions... isn't an argument at all. It's a game of dodgeball.

[–]The_Patriarchy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DMgabe 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JaydenPope 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]woodchopperak 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In her own way Angela paints a straw man about feminists.

I hoped my blow-dried hair and figure-hugging dress would give her some clue as to the answer.

I see marriage as more than a piece of paper, that I believe women have no place in a combat zone, and that I know my daughter won't be stereotyped for playing with dolls.

I have met some beautiful stylish women that define themselves as feminists.

Also I think that feminists don't have a problem with letting their daughters play with dolls, it's the idea that the ONLY toys a daughter should play with are dolls.

In a sense this article is kind of bullshit. I would rather discuss how feminists talk about how only men being able to partake in combat is being sexist towards women. Really though why is it not sexist towards men since men are forced to sign up for the draft and partake in combat?

[–]Red_Canuck2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Your_Bacon_Counselor 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShawnGH 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Roddy0608 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zap283 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]woodchopperak -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Twitter mob attacks female journalist for refusing to call herself a feminist.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	154
Comments	42
Date	November 1, 2013 3:08 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1pov2x/twitter_mob_attacks_female_journalist_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/twitter-mob-attacks-female-journalist-for-refusing.1159873 https://theredarchive.com/post/1159873

Comments