I don't doubt it!

A little complexity please. There isn't a historical and/or present-day epidemic of women sexually aggressing upon, violating, and exploiting men. There is with men towards women. This is what accounts for women's hesitation/caution/resistance. Not gender essentialism.

first of all, why the fuck do you care this much if I see a male gyno or not?

no not the same thing at all. really silly analogy actually. dig a little deeper.

glad you have a good one. I'm still never doing it. :)

oh please. no one said all male gynos are perverts. I'm still never going to one. now go kick rocks.

this is why I would NEVER go to a male gyno.

that's awesome. :)

*men = mean

If the author didn't answer all of the questions you have, it doesn't men there isn't any complexity or analysis in the article. I would re-read paragraphs 2-4 if you're still jonesing for complexity and food-for-thought.

Well, I can see how a guy (or anyone) could interpret it like that based on the title. Which is totally reductionistic for the purpose of click-baiting. However, you're ignoring the analysis and complexity within the article.

Guess what. Your suspicion is correct! IT IS!!!!!! :D

Their plan is working then! It's aaaaaall a PR stunt.

"It doesn't help the female cause to shit all over males. It doesn't make males want to share any of that so called "privilege", it doesn't make them want to be sympathetic to the fact someone else has been wronged or anything else..."

OH MY GOOOOODOHMYGODOHMYGOD!!!!!!!

that sounds amazing! good for you. and always remember: you can order 2 desserts. Nora Ephron.

I'm speechless.

oh this is just too good!!!!!!!!!

oh my lord. kittens in tiny witch hats. my heart just exploded.

I'm speechless. Yeah...you definitely win this.