Sooo, don't point out that they're terrible?
The most popular channels run by women aren't accepted at VidCons, because they're about looks, and all of the other so-called "important" women's channels are plagued with these fuckfaces you mention.
I don't get why you'd just straight up back down from something that…

"Worse than shooting fish in a barrel"? What, we're not even giving the poor misogynists a chance to escape?

Yes, because a site that has more than 1 billion unique visitors every day doesn't matter at all. I mean, why even bother with something as trivial as deeply entrenched, commonplace, raging misogyny on one of the world's busiest media sites? It's not like it happens to anyone that matters. It's just a few women.…

No one gives a shit about your boner.

By that logic, why should anyone trust the accused rapist either? People lie. I use the term "logic" loosely, of course.

Check out any video by Rebecca Watson from Skepchick. It absolutely does not matter what she's saying, the comments are full of rape threats, name-calling and assorted bullshit. She could make a video that says the sky is blue and the first comment would be "I'll rape you in an elevator, cunt-face."

I think we need a shirt that says "No one gives a shit about your boner"

I agree if there are actual facts, and you still find the victim culpable then you're a dick

People who are confronted with facts of an actual rape and go out of their way to prove the victim culpable are rape apologists. They exist. Everywhere.

I would also add that momo507 is belittling the hard work of the people and organizations that train these impressive animals.

The quote you show here is completely taken out of context. Reading the original article it is clear that the writer gave a very fair treatment to the story and it is quite dishonest to say otherwise. There was a lot of nuance shown in the author's treatment of the allegations from Faircloth and the response from…

Pointing out that women have very little, if anything, to gain from falsely reporting a rape is not actively agreeing with the idea that her allegations must be true simply because they were made. They were instead a series of questions to legitimately try and understand what kind of person would lie about something…

No. I reported on those contradictory statements because I was the one who unearthed many of them. I was very fair to both sides in my original piece and Oberst's team agrees.

Now hold on- the commenters on the Gawker article ASSURED me Jezebel would have nothing to say! How am I supposed to gloat over the lack of balance in Jezebel coverage? Shucks. Back to old fashioned name calling I guess.

The issue was defining a gender solely by the anatomy of cisgender people. Some trans men can still bear children. Some of them even choose to do so. That doesn't make them women. They're still men.

If shoes got pregnant, then cats and dogs would live in perfect harmony.

It is relevant that the five justices were men because this was a sexist argument to begin with. Hobby Lobby wanting to limit the birth control methods available to their female employees and dependents was driven by discrimination against women. The fact that all five men on the Supreme Court sided with this…

Also, don't forget in Roe v. Wade Justice Byron White wrote this line wagging his finger at the majority:

pelosi is sexist like santa and jesus are white