Following anti-feminist Fitz's article lambasting Title IX, one of his fellow bloggers named "Marty" chimed in with the brilliant "feminists are ugly" retort: "Heh, I hate to sound so sexist but google [the feminist in question's] picture. It pretty much explains everything." [Insert high five to Fitz].
At this juncture, I must quickly note that whenever anyone precedes their sentence with "I hate to sound sexist/racist/offensive but" you should pretty much just brace yourself for them being exactly that. It's as though some people think that qualifying their sentence beforehand erases the sexist/racist/offensive quality to whatever they're about to say.
Now that that's settled, let's examine Marty's sexist statement and the Opine responses to it.
Does anyone else find it odd (and creepy) that Marty immediately ran a Google image search on this feminist? How, exactly, is a woman's appearance in any way relevant to her argument? How does her appearance "explain everything" about her arguments? Oh, right, feminists are ugly. In the minds of anti-feminists, women can only seek to be the equal of men if they are ugly, hairy, and can't get men, or are sort of "tranny"-looking. More on that to come. Right Marty?
But more to the point of the Opine blog, which claims to "defend marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity," how can Marty's comment even be considered a substantive or respectful counter-argument?
In fact, when my "special friend" Hammerpants asked the important question as to whether "it's a valid retort to a woman's argument to imply that she's ugly," the Opine apologists came out in full force.
For, not a one of these "family values" men saw anything wrong with denigrating the appearance of a woman with whom they disagree. All's fair in hate and bigotry, I suppose.
The "Chairm" character did show a willingness to delete comments in this thread. Unfortunately, he only deleted one of Jane Know's. Wow, she certainly must've said something way worse than denigrating the appearance of a woman, right fellas? It's interesting that Chairm, who is so very concerned with deleting comments that lack "substantive content" and that include "petty insults," said nothing about Marty's comment.
If I wasn't so amused by this hypocrisy I would almost be angry. But wait, it gets better!
Woman-Against-Feminism and Expert on Gender Relations and "Coitus" Renee, in fact, said that Marty's comment was okay because, you see, what men and women do is judge each other's appearance. Debate coaches everywhere take note: Because straight people have a complex mating dance based on physical appearance, it is now valid to dismiss an argument of the opposite sex on the basis of said appearance! Of course, this was all after Marty chimed in to clarify his earlier comment by delving into whether "the chick" is a "transexual" or just a "butch lesbian" 'cuz seriously dude just look at her *har har har*.
If these are the "family values" of those who claim to "defend marriage," it's no surprise that they're a dying breed. If mocking the appearance of women constitutes "respect for human dignity" I want none of it.
Not to mention the fact that it's superficial, hypocritical men like these who make all women just a little bit lezbo. (Except, I suppose, certain women who are opposed to feminism because they crave those pats on the head from the men in their lives).
Respect for human dignity my dyke ass.