This is my response, humble and quickly written, to Katie Fustich’s verbal bagging of Gavin McInnes. Her Article in Bust.com
I don’t particularly agree with this guy McInnes, but I also know how to do a close enough reading to address some very biased remarks on the part of the journalist here. One could take a speech by Gandhi and rip it to shreds if you do what this journalist has done.
1)Misogyny = “is hatred (or contempt) of women.”
I don’t see McInnes expressing this sentiment. In his own awkward and politically incorrect way he is trying to celebrate women. Calling someone a Misogynist has been the quick, and in this article, first and foremost way to discredit someone. Let him say he hates women, or women’s rights, or would like to see women subject to men before you start using this word. Otherwise prepare to be called a misandrist.
2)The Idaho life = It is very clear that you view disparagingly the domestic ideal that many many men and women in this country aspire to and enjoy. Not everyone lives in LA, like I do, where getting ahead is the reason many transplant their lives. Most people stay close to home and live modest and, apparently to you, unappealing lives for the rest of their lives. But, I’m only assuming they aren’t your target audience so who gives two S**ts right?
3)”Irrelevant View points” = obviously not if you wrote this article based on another irrelevant article by an irrelevant publication called the Huffington Post.
4)He has a write to be pro-life. Having a contrary point of view doesn’t discredit someone’s opinion. Remove the word feticide from the dictionary if you want to avoid this being a problem for you.
5)He said that he was sick of women who’ve never given birth “Trivializing” child birth, which means to minimize. He is therefore viewing this as something worthwhile, meaningful, significant – the antonyms of trivial go on and on- and not putting women down for having children. He didn’t say that women without children couldn’t TALK about the issue. Just that they shouldn’t disparage it, especially without having experienced it. Therefore, since he knows he can’t experience giving birth, he is treating the subject with an appropriate amount of respect. You seem to think that being a man disqualifies one from discussing women’s issues. By that logic, you shouldn’t be talking about him because you’re a woman.
6)Silly mustache = I only have to point out silly heels, silly painted long nails, silly earrings, silly plucking/waxing of all sorts of body hair, silly paint on your face…. oh boy the list goes on and yet, it seems petty to point this out doesn’t it? It was just as petty when you, the journalist here, did it first.
7)It could be said that your job is useless because it’s in the same industry. Glass houses Fustich, glass houses.
8)Tool-bag not hugged as a child = It is often the resort of those who lack all the facts and seek to insert their own fiction as truth to use name calling. Be a politician if you want to do that ma’am.
9)Male activism = This should be of no concern to anyone who’s motives are pure, sense of social justice is balanced and who truly believes that they are in the right. Only those with improper agendas are afraid of opposing discourse. You abhor the other side having a say. I believe that was the battle feminists were fighting to begin with. Would you have the rebel become the dictator? If so, you are no feminist and you have disavowed the revolutionary spirit behind all honest social progressivism.