Because engaging in the same type of misandry you supposedly stand against undermines your point. Because it points you are not interested in a fair world, just one where you have an advantage. Because that advantage seeking alienates those who otherwise might sympathize with you, forcing them to choose a side--which won't be your side by the way. Because sexual misconduct is not the exclusive province of men. And last, because men are individuals, not exemplars of their sex.

*misandry

Thank you. Correction made.

Just last week, I heard a member of a minority say "The idea that minorities can't be racist is itself racist." That is, you're saying that minorities are less than fully human if you don't think they can hate as well as anyone else, and for the same reasons as anyone else.

The same is true of sexism. If you hate people because of their sex, that's sexism, and it's wrong, full stop.

She does have a point that men as a group have too many members who have taken actions that tarnish the reputation of the whole group. But her response, if men responded that way, she would be the first to decry it as sexism.

> She does have a point that men as a group have too many members who have taken actions that tarnish the reputation of the whole group.

Stop grouping people then. I am not responsible for what some psychopath I have never met does.

Because this kind of thing turns off countless young men to what is entirely reasonable and worthwhile mainstream feminism, and to accomplish social change you need a lot of people on board.

Because there's a high personal cost to carrying around hatred.

The question is rhetorical--it's quite clear that she already does hate us, and enjoys it.

(Next up, "Why Can't We Hate X?", for other values of X.)

Doesn't the Washington Post have some sort of policies against 'hate speech'?

I mean.. this kind of qualifies as that.

It would be hate speech if s/Men/Women, but as it stands the one class that you can hate all you want is white men, and it's never a problem.

Such a modest proposal. Much less provocative than Jonathon Swift's. So the question is, why do so many of the responses not bother to read the fucking article, not just the headline? She isn't saying that she hates men: she's telling men that they really ought to shape up, and support women, not put them down.

Once female stem cells can be made into spermatozoa cells - research that is now underway - men will be physically unnecessary for reproduction as women could in theory use technology to fertilize each other's egg cells. This would not have the cellular problems associated with cloning, as it would be sexual reproduction at the cellular level. All of the offspring would be female, no Y chromosomes needed.

This should bring about the utopia that many of the thinkers like the author dream of.