The brains of stupid people are just wired different, I guess.

How in god's name did you manage to read the whole thing? I struggled to make it to the end of the second paragraph.

I did a little better with the comments though, some of them are comedy gold... although I'm probably being anti-"feminist" for thinking that and should probably spend the rest of the afternoon being ashamed of my penis :-/

Yeah, there's this strange subculture of "feminists" who hate men, and also hate women who don't hate men. That one blog you're talking about is also pretty racist against white people, and I think also hates transgendered people as well. I haven't been there in a while... Anyhoo, it is part of a larger "thing" of people who start out with being angry and then look to find justification for it everywhere they look. There's these sexist "feminists", the equally repulsive "mens' rights" jokers, and the Westboro nutters to name a few.

Jen McCreight on the other hand has a pretty awesome blog, and she's pretty obviously moving on up in the world since the whole Boobquake thing. I guess if I were some angry obscure sexist blogger I might be jealous enough to try to minimize her too.

What's that joke about the humour section in the feminist bookstore?

I'm pretty sure that a veterinarian - even one who works in a big-box store somewhere in Oklahoma - knows what platelets are. Whatever communication problem happened is unfortunate, I'm sure.

Really, someone who takes a beloved pet to a veterinary clinic in a big-box store and then complains about the standard of care (which is determined by the corporate overlords, enforced pretty strictly, and generally not optimal) has no business talking about the differences in the brains of other stupid people.

*ranting to my mother about my interactions with a big-box-store veterinarian not understanding what 'platelets' are and letting smaller dogs attack him while he was waking up from anesthesia when he was getting neutered and my inability to get across to the 'vet' how FUCKING STUPID her actions were*

How is this even possible? Did this "vet" purchase his/her qualifications over the Internet?

And yeah, I found that blog post you linked to pretty much unreadable.

Thanks for your input, Thisbe; it must be nice living in a world where your economic status means you don't have to consider the cost of your veterinary care, and where you feel no need to consider the position of those less fortunate than yourself. Second-rate service? Second-rate people have no business asking for more!

I too don't get on with what your mother terms "those kind of people" but equally people who do not know the difference between 'it's' and 'its' also bug me. Your writing is riddled with these. There is no excuse for an educated person to promote bad grammar whilst railing against other stupid people. Physician heal thyself.

For some reason todays xkcd reminded me of you
http://xkcd.com/

So is she saying you're not a chick, or not a Dawkins fan? Having gone with you to see Dawkins speak, I must say, if she's right, you're a pretty damn convincing cross dresser and/or Dawkins fan :)

OK, that does it Cuttlefish. You're going in my feed read because I can see this one coming.

Umm, are you sure we read the same thing? I thought that the spinster had an excellent point. The idea that "all women are already free and equal in the United States" is frankly bullshit.

I see that she was pointing out specifically "liberal dudes and that boobquake chick" and I agree with your comments about that being demeaning to Jen McCreight, and leaving out tons of women who also like Dawkins, but the rest of what she was saying rings true to me regardless of whether Dawkins was mentioned at all in the whole article...

I saw this on isis yesterday and I agree with her that the line "rare indeed is the intellectual Western motherfucker who is not enamored of the glorious myth that he and his ilk, in their educated and progressive magnanimity, have liberated their women." is brilliant and also pretty much spot on. We shouldn't let our "enlightened" men take away the need to continue improving the female plight just because things are better.

And yes, I feel the same way about racism, sure things are better so now we just stop and leave the inequality where it is? Wouldn't want those priveleged white men to lose ALL of their advantages would we?

"I know some fantastically stupid people with advanced degrees."

It is appalling to know so many people who obtained advanced degrees in order to avoid termination of their support alimony.

We chat at political functions and I manage to keep a rictus smile on my face by imagining new and creative ways of murdering them.

"This 'feminist' is also a supporter of the sexist notion that religion is gender appropriate for...."

I have to go vomit in the umbrella stand now.

She should be demeaning to Jen! You fools don't see the big picture. Allow me to explain:

God creates man and woman. Woman creates boobs. Boobs distract men from their godly ways thus angering God. God creates earthquakes. Earthquakes make boobs bounce, further distracting men and angering God more, causing him to send more earthquakes (vicious cycle, I know). Women don't repent and finally God gets pissed and send a giant earthquake in 2011, accomplishing what Eve set out to do 6,000 years ago when the earth was created; blow up the Fukushima nuclear reactor.

There! Are you women happy!? You finally did it! I hereby propose levying a tax on feminine hygiene products to fund the relief efforts in Japan. I think we can all agree it is the only logical course of action.

This 'feminist' is also a supporter of the sexist notion that religion is gender appropriate for females, while atheism is gender appropriate for males.

You really haven't read IBTP before, have you? You're drastically mis-interpreting her weapons-grade snark. A little more reading should disabuse your of the notion that she considers anything "gender appropriate" for anyone.

Oh, and she's harshing on Jen McCreight because, well, read for yourself... You may not agree, but I can see where's she's coming from.

What is it about humans that makes us so desperately need to exclude others from our tribes -- or even our definitions of "humanity?"

What a curiously unreadable blog you linked to. The stilted self-referential prose is really rather opaque. I suspect that that blog with its weird in-humour is a little like the two disaffected teens from the Simpson's episode 'Homerpalooza'

Teen1: Oh, here comes that cannonball guy. He's cool.
Teen2: Are you being sarcastic, dude?
Teen1: I don't even know anymore.

Zyzle-- Its worse after reading the whole thing. There might be a point in there. If it was fr*med as "[main point about a feminist I dont like]--> I was disappointed to see a leader in the Atheist movement, Richard Dawkins, support [feminist I dont like], I hold him to higher standards than everyone else/I hope he was just uninformed and now thanks to my post he can be informed/etc"

But the way Richard, Jen, and atheists were misrepresented, I now must take into account the possibility that the feminist the author didnt like was also misrepresented. I have no more information than I had before reading the post-- If I want to know more, I have to go somewhere else, because the author has no credibility.

In other words, the post is worthless.

Stefanie-- Apostrophes are archaic tools of oppression used by Teh Patriarchy. The fact you actively encourage the use of an obviously phallic symbol, forced between the feminine curves of nearby letters, where it is neither wanted nor necessary, as meaning is clear via context, just proves how brainwashed you are.

When I was little, I got the impression that stupid people did stupid things with the sole purpose of pissing me off.

Actually, I think you had it right the first time.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist like Bill Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory.

@ beccaf22

My mom would have told you not to forget white women are also privileged in matters of race.

Cuttlefish -

Goodness, someone's projecting.

There are plenty of veterinarians who provide an acceptable standard of care at the minimum price possible; many, indeed, who have a sliding scale for some services or free clinics for low-income pet owners.

There are also veterinarians who provide cut-rate services using inadequate anesthesia and in unacceptable hygienic conditions. Those veterinarians are unethical; not much less so are owners who take their pets there. Owning a pet is a luxury and not a necessity; if a person cannot afford to pay for an acceptable level of care, that person should not have a pet.

Regardless, in this case my criticism was not of Erv taking her dog to an inadequate vet. So far as I know, most of the big box vets (and I can only think of two major chains) generally do not violate animal welfare standards, although they do tend to focus on volume of treated animals rather than on the pet owners' emotional experience. My criticism was of Erv *choosing* a vet clinic that provided a lesser standard of care (and that should have been expected to provide that lesser standard) than she desired - and then complaining about that as though it were someone else's fault.

But upon reflection I have to call the whole story suspect. It is entirely not possible for a veterinarian practicing in the United States to "not understand what platelets are".

...but really, the whole thing is an unimportant digression from an equally unimportant blog post.

Funny, I missed the part where she chose it based on its lesser standard of care. As someone recently put it, so far as I know, most of the big box vets generally do not violate animal welfare standards. I'd feel perfectly within my rights, thus, to complain about a lesser standard of care.

(btw, the defense mechanism most evident would be denial, as displayed in both of your comments now. Isn't armchair psychiatry fun?)

I agree with Becca- I think you are misinterpreting Twisty's snark. Read her FAQ and you'll get a clearer picture of where she's coming from. While I don't agree with her on every plank of her platform, she is pro-woman, pro-trans, pro-child, anti-racist, anti-religion and has some thought provoking discussions on a variety of topics. She's exceptionally well read and attracts a lot of great commenters. As she says, it's not a "Feminism 101" blog.

She's exceptionally well read and attracts a lot of great commenters.

Some great comments from the thread over at the link:

In reference to Dawkins:

Heâs not that different from the Christian Taliban

Iâve had no time for Dwakins (sic) since he declared that religion was the sole cause of war.

This is just awesome on its own:

New Atheism (as a white male supremacist front, which it most certainly is)

The general gist of the conversation, so very succintly put:

God I hate white dudes.

Anyway, each to his/her own and by gosh they can go on hating white dudes until they're blue in the face for all I care, but I find it peculiar that at the same time they seem to be making a claim to rationality. I don't think it means what they think it means.

There is no excuse for an educated person to promote bad grammar whilst railing against other stupid people. Physician heal thyself.

Orthography is not fucking grammar.

If you want to point the finger and play intellectually superior at least have the courtesy to use technical terms correctly.

syria@#23

"Read her FAQ and you'll get a clearer picture of where she's coming from."

M'Kay.

Do you really think a mission statement is an accurate reflections of philosophy, position and policy?

If so, what color are the moons on your world?

I read the FAQ and then I read pages and pages of failed attempts at being linguistically facile while accusing men and women who bothered to accomplish things of hate crimes, ideological heresy and of course....collusion with political, economic, ideological and cultural patriarchy by the hegemonic systematic marginalization of post-structuralist feminist models of self serving lazy bullshit.

This is what would happen if Cotton Mather married George P. Metesky and they raised a little girl....in a crate.

Cuttlefish, I fail entirely to understand what you are upset about.

Honestly - I am super confused.

I empathize deeply with people who want their pets to have the best experience possible. It's why I do what I do.
I dislike the corporate chains of vet clinics intensely, and wish for various reasons that they were not the bulk of the growth market in urban veterinary medicine. But they are - because there is a market for cheap veterinary care.

Here's the thing:
With any product, unless one believes that the top-end product is overpriced (and that therefore a lower-priced but equal quality product is possible), one expects that if the price is lower, the quality will be less.

Neutering a dog costs a certain amount to the veterinarian performing the surgery; costs include overhead on the building and equipment used, technician time, anesthesia, materials, and doctor time. Small animal general practice veterinarians price their services such that they can pay back their extensive student loans and still be solvent; they are uniformly not making bank in their business.

All of that is another way of saying that the price of a neuter at an expensive veterinary clinic is not inflated; if anything, those neuters are done at or below cost.

If a person wants a spay or neuter that is cheaper than the most expensive cost (which might include things like fluids via IV catheter while under anesthesia, monitoring by an LVT, separate recovery kennel, better pain control, and more time for conversation at discharge with the busy veterinarian), that person needs to be prepared to give up some of the extras.

Not receiving these things - having a dog recover in company with other dogs (who might then interact negatively with it), a veterinarian who is not interested in indulging the client in conversation about platelets - is not evidence of the "stupidity" of the veterinarian. It is evidence that the client did not choose to pay for those things.

She might or might not have been ABLE to pay for them; that's a different question. But regardless, it is not the stupidity of the provider of service that caused the lack.

I'm not sure what is so appealing to some people about attributing bad outcome to the stupidity of others. There are other things going on, usually.

I just realized the problem, ignorant people privilege, IPP. I prefer that to stupid people privilege because someone might not be able to help being stupid and stupid people don't always feel privileged because of their stupidity. People expressing ignorant people privilege IPP always do feel privileged because of their ignorance.

In thinking about it, I think IPP is the archetypal privilege. All other privilege derives from that.

Xenophobia derives from not being able to understand someone who is the other and so feels that they are non-human. The fundamental cause of bigotry is ignorance. Same with sexism, the fundamental cause is ignorance of the need to, and how to treat people with respect.

HIV deniers feel privilege because of their ignorance of HIV. Evolution deniers feel privileged because of their ignorance of evolution.

Ignorance is also something that can always be fixed.

Sili, *clenched-tentacle salute*

Um...

Yes, she is a *little* harsh on Richard Dawkins. But she has a point, which I think you maybe missed on the first read through (yes, the writing style is a bit opaque until you get used to it. Bloody humanities majors).

The point being: if even *Richard Dawkins* is agreeing with this patriarchist crap, we still have a long way to go.

I think daedalus2u has a really good point. Ignorance, laziness, and the ever present confirmation bias seem to be really easy things for people to give into, and ironically some people are actually proud of giving in.

And it really does have nothing to do with education or even general intelligence or stupidity, it's not so much what you know or how quickly you can think as how quickly you do. You definitely can't get through veterinary school without learning about platelets, but whether you actually bother to remember that in your practice or keep yourself generally educated in your field is another matter entirely. Like all those IDers who go get actual real science degrees so they can tout their credentials before going right back to their delusions.

> sili
*Another clenched-tentacle salute, with barnacle cluster*

To be fair, if the vet was "letting smaller dogs attack him while he was waking up from anesthesia when he was getting neutered," he probably wasn't in much of a state to discuss platelets anyway ... Poor vet ...

"...how FUCKING STUPID her actions were"
.. her actions ....? Oh, wait! OK, I understand now. Whew, that's a relief! (And seriously, that sounds infuriating - and poor dog! Damn.)

"Orthography is not fucking grammar."
Yeah, well, that's not what I heard ... Sure, sure, Orthography says they have to work late at the office, but don't fool yourself ...

"In thinking about it, I think IPP is the archetypal privilege. All other privilege derives from that."
... wow. I think you're kinda right.

You really haven't read IBTP before, have you? You're drastically mis-interpreting her weapons-grade snark. A little more reading should disabuse your of the notion that she considers anything "gender appropriate" for anyone.

Oh, and she's harshing on Jen McCreight because, well, read for yourself... You may not agree, but I can see where's she's coming from.

Speaking of

xkcd

*AHEM*

My criticism was of Erv *choosing* a vet clinic that provided a lesser standard of care (and that should have been expected to provide that lesser standard) than she desired - and then complaining about that as though it were someone else's fault.

Ever occur to you that she mighta been young enough that this was the incident where she learned big box vets provide a lesser standard of care?

Maybe YOU were born knowing how to feed yourself, drive a car, and needlessly pollute blog comments with nails-on-a-chalkboard judgmental smarminess, but some people don't have Omniscience Privilege.

Am still waiting for ERV boobquake pictures to surface :/

Am still waiting for ERV boobquake pictures to surface :/

Try this

The Short Eared Owl:

"(yes, the writing style is a bit opaque until you get used to it. Bloody humanities majors)."

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more. I am pursuing a PhD in English literature and I couldn't make any sense at all of that gibberish. Although of course academic prose* is different from a blog post, that kind of decadent writing annoys me, as it fosters the belief that students of the humanities are wholly incapable of lucid expression. Gah.

* I have written about Jean Baudrillard before now who is very opaque. However, even he is better than the blog post, as you can at least trace some semblance of thought with his writings.

Seems like a Poe Site. Under "What this blog is for" it seems the desired future is genderless nonexistence.

"The Twistolution envisions a post-patriarchal order free of male privilege, rape, misogyny, femininity, theocracy, corporatocracy, gender, race, deity worship, marriage, discrimination, prostitution, exploitation, godbags, the nuclear family, reproduction, caste, violence, the oppression of children, the oppression of animals, poverty, pornography, and government interference with: private uteruses, non-abusive domestic arrangements, drug habits, lives, and deaths."

Thanks for the cleavage shot Azkyroth. It was totally Hawt.

"When I was little, I got the impression that stupid people did stupid things with the sole purpose of pissing me off. But when I grew up, I finally figured out they were just a different species"

Lol! I knew that feeling.

She won't allow men to post there:

"If youâre a dude, donât post here." (From the FAQ)

What kind of website is THAT?

Seems like a Poe Site. Under "What this blog is for" it seems the desired future is genderless nonexistence.

IBTP is not a poe site - it is a long-existing feminist site. You might disagree with Twisty's points, and I sometimes do, but you should definitely take the site serious.

I find the particular post less than impressive, if nothing else then because of the very points Abbie mentions, and the attacks on atheists, but there is definitely an important point there, even if one could have wished for a better presentation of it.

Jerry, IBTP stopped allowing male commenters due to some very nasty comments by male anti-feminists in the past (you would have to read them to understand how bad they were, but trust me, they were really bad).

I think it was the wrong way to handle it, and it's one of the reasons why I don't read IBTP (the writing style is another), but I respect Twisty's reasoning behind the choice.

theshortearedowl-- I think the point of that post was that Dawkins isnt sufficiently feminist, in the authors opinion, and he thinks a feminist the author does not like is 'interesting'. I get the gist of it. But there are any number of ways to convey this information that do not include degrading a specific woman who has nothing to do with the topic, or insulting every other female atheist on the planet who doesnt agree with the author.

I 'get' "The point being: if even *Richard Dawkins* is agreeing with this patriarchist crap, we still have a long way to go."

My point is "If this self-proclaimed feminist just couldnt fucking resist attacking other women in a totally off-topic manner, and this completely OT attack is praised by other self-proclaimed feminists as 'hysterical', then that self-proclaimed 'feminist' movement has a fuckovalong way to go."

I am particularly disgusted by this because this same crap gets thrown on fucking every young female atheist woman. We dont have ideas of our own. We dont have identities of our own. We cannot be mentioned without our Important Male counterpart. Jen doesnt get a name or appropriate recognition for her activities from the author-- to the author, Jen is just some air-headed Dawkins groupie (the only female biologist who appreciates Dawkins work even worthy of existence). And I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why anon Jen was brought up in that post in the first place. Absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post.

I understand what 'the point' of that post was.

But it didnt end up being the only 'point' of that post. This was the dominant point I took home: "The blog author is a stupid, jealous, sexist bitch... who doesnt like Richard Dawkins. Who the fuck cares?"

I suspect Jen got the casual reference because the "boobquake" stuff had been recently drawn to the writer's attention, especially given that she devoted a post to the topic. So it was just a thoughtless name-drop and that's about it (although she did pretty much dismiss Jen as an airhead in that previous post, it seems). Jealous, though? Where do you get jealousy out of that? Dismissiveness for sure, but not jealousy.

Also, now that I read this, I'm disappointed Dawkins was impressed with that lecture as well. Sommers' work is by and large bombastic rhetoric and poorly-researched claims, and that was no exception. Oh well, perhaps I can hope he was just being polite to the person who suggested it...

She won't allow men to post there:

"If youâre a dude, donât post here." (From the FAQ)

What kind of website is THAT?

An echo chamber, duh. Intellectual honesty and willingness to consider differing viewpoints are, like, SO patriarchal.

"IBTP is not a poe site - it is a long-existing feminist site."

So it's a serious feminist site that doesn't want people to take it seriously and it goes out of its way to alienate both men and women.

Awesome.

IBTP has mentioned me a bunch of times since boobquake happened - I seem to be her model "bad feminist." She revels in any opportunity she can find to belittle me. Someone jealous much?

Apart from the sheer sexism apparent on that blog in the way the author dehumanizes Jen, all Dawkins did was call the transcribed lecture "excellent". That hardly says anything at all about it except that he enjoyed it somehow or thought others might, and for all we know it could have been a mere formalism acknowledging publicly that he had indeed read it rather than a full appraisal of it which would be why he said nothing more. It is even possible that he doesn't know all that much about the women's equality movement in the USA and isn't in a position to critique the essay. The people at iblamethepatriarchy.com don't seem to have any way of knowing any more than that.

@ ERV

OK...

The author is writing for their audience, not yours (and not, apparently, you). They assume that their audience already knows their opinion on "that boobquake chick" - ie. boobquake was ultimately using female sexuality to promote feminism, which is kind of a contradiction in terms, as one of the goals of feminism is to stop women being seen as sex objects (in non-sex-related situations). I agree with this, although I'm still out on boobquake - sexual liberation is (or should be) another goal of feminism in other parts of the world.

The point of feminist activism is to attack non-feminist ideas and principles, whether they are held by men or women, even ones who call themselves feminist. You don't get a free pass to feminism just by being a woman. See: Sarah Palin.

IN ANY CASE, the Boobquake reference was an aside. The point of the article is to attack this Sommers person, and to reprimand Richard Dawkins for agreeing with her. Yes, it's ok to tell your heros when they screw up. James Watson - good when discovering DNA; bad when calling black people stupid.

Anyhow, I'm done with this - I don't even read their blog and I don't feel strongly enough to keep defending this article.

You got it, Owl.

@ theshortearedowl

â¦boobquake was ultimately using female sexuality to promote feminism, which is kind of a contradiction in termsâ¦

I see, so Jen is the misogynist and the burqa people are the feminists. Thanks for clearing that up. For the longest time I thought feminism was about equality, freedom and choice. Now I understand that it's about wearing the correct attire.

â¦one of the goals of feminism is to stop women being seen as sex objects (in non-sex-related situations).

â¦because we all turn into eunuchs the instant weâre not in a âsex-related situationâ. Again, I always thought that forcing women to wear burqas was about controlling their sexuality, but now I know that itâs not, and that Jenâs use of sexuality as a means of protest was completely stupid and wrong.

I agree with this, although I'm still out on boobquake - sexual liberation is (or should be) another goal of feminism in other parts of the world.

Wait, now Iâm confused again. Was this a âsex-related situationâ or not? Please clear this up for me, because I need to be able to tell my womenfolk what theyâre allowed to wear, and when.

The point of feminist activism is to attack non-feminist ideas and principles, whether they are held by men or women, even ones who call themselves feminist.

Got it. The next time some âchickâ protests a horrifying example of the oppression of women I need to ignore the oppression sheâs protesting and attack her for dressing like a slut.

IN ANY CASE, the Boobquake reference was an aside. The point of the article is to attack this Sommers person, and to reprimand Richard Dawkins for agreeing with her.

...and the best opening salvo is to toss out an aside that demeans women and diminishes their accomplishments.

Slow clap.

As I observed on Jen's blog, "feminists" like Jill almost seem like they view "the patriarchy" as an unwanted competitor rather than a common enemy.

This 'feminist' is also a supporter of the sexist notion that religion is gender appropriate for females, while atheism is gender appropriate for males.

No she does not! I can tell you right now, she's an Atheist and rejects all religion as patriarchal. I don't know how you drew that from reading her post.

These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

Alas, they're not just farmers.

Twisty takes pride in writing stuff that is dense, sarcastic, and steeped thoroughly in her relatively esoteric, extensive, and specific background in radical feminism. She permeates her speech with self-referential terminology. (I think that calling most men "dudes" is supposed to be an amusing, quirky signal of her feminist credentials, or a way of leveling the playing field, or something, but her constant use and reinvention of the term comes off as just an attempt to create a slur word against men out of pure spite.) She has an almost impenetrably arbitrary and confusing set of pet peeves, many of which seem to be her own invention and are not really common to other feminists AFAIK. (I think she used to get annoyed about people talking about feminism using the first person, e.g. "I think...".)

Once she decides that something is in some way misogynist, that seems also to tar everyone else for liking that thing. Jen was bad (or at least poked fun at) because she liked "House". Dawkins was bad for liking that speech by Sommers, and by insinuation the liberal dudes (and the "boobquake chick") are also presumably lesser for liking Dawkins too much. I'm not actually sure how far down the guilty-by-association rabbit hole goes. Twisty also doesn't take criticism (or even requests for better communication) all that seriously; she usually gives a sort of "courtier's reply" about the necessity of deeply studying feminist theory. Having too different an idea of what feminism is, pretty much disqualifies you from having a useful opinion. Don't even talk about having an different conception of the importance thereof.

She's also said things about the awful disgustingness of blow jobs and anal sex which, besides being not particularly favorable to women in general, were astonishingly clueless regarding gay men. (I've heard enough obnoxious comments and insinuations about how gross and undesirable and perverse gay sex is from clueless straight guys and tacky comedies, thank you very much.) But she more or less stated that she only said those things to amuse herself with the negative attention it would bring, and she made fun of the people who criticized her for getting all worked up, so I guess that vindicates her. Needless to say, she's often quite down on the whole "sex-positive" thing.

My general feeling is that Twisty is an intelligent person, with some thoughtful viewpoints, buried under huge mounds of smug, hostile, and outright oblivious crap that are not worth wading through to get to her points. I don't think it matters how smart or insightful you are; if you spend all your time mocking random people in front of a largely sychophants-only audience, the project is going to go to shit.

You've got something there, for I've noticed an inability to learn in many people. Sexual or political bent makes no difference, some people are just clue resistant. It doesn't help when those who support a particular bigotry pop up to reinforce the fool's prejudice.

Haven't read the post in question. Then again, I'm not a big fan of special snowflakes and their need to show off their special snowflakeness.

"'Snowflakeness'? Is there such a word?"

"There is now."

IBTP has not banned male commenters. There are several male-identified individuals who continue to comment there regularly. What has been banned are comments written from an explicitly or implicitly male perspective. The basic idea behind this is that essentially the entire blogosphere is written from a male perspective, and so IBTP is meant to provide an environment where that is not the case, and where the female perspective dominates.

Also, IBTP is extremely well written, and Twisty has one of the best senses of humor of any blogger on the Internetz that I am aware of.

I mostly get the impression from IBTP that they go all the way around the circle of radical gender chauvinism except that theirs is female instead of male. It's like they're so far off they come full circle.

Misogyny and misandry are both shit. Both of these kinds of sexism are each bad for both sexes because they reinforce a notion of inequality.

(I thought the boobquake thing was just to prove some fundamentalist moron wrong about their predictions, which incidentally had to do with female sexual expression.)