Feminism

No, Campus Feminists Didn't Shut Down Kate Smurthwaite's 'Free Speech Comedy Show'

Behold the anatomy of an outrage cycle

|

Kate Smurthwaite/Facebook

Did you hear about the British university that cancelled a feminist comedian's show because the campus Feminist Society objected, largely based on her support for decriminalizing prostitution? If you haven't, it probably won't be long—this story has all the makings of a viral outrage smash, complete with the irony that the show was about free speech and the fact that Richard Dawkins is already tweeting about it. There's probably very little that can stop this Twitter tempest in its tracks now, not even the fact that the story isn't actually true. 

Activist-comedian Kate Smurthwaite was scheduled to give a show at Goldsmiths, part of the University of London system. Smurthwaite is known around the U.K. for her Edinburgh Fringe show Lefty Cock Womble, as well as TV punditry and a very popular YouTube video called "Atheist Bitchslap." She's also somewhat controversial, in part owing to her support for the "Nordic model" of prostitution law, which makes patronizing a prostitute a crime but treats all sex workers as crime victims.

Apparently, some in the campus Feminist Society proposed protesting outside Smurthwaite's show—which let's not forget is a perfectly valid form of speech countering speech. But the group voted, and a majority were against protesting. The group "had nothing to do with the decision to cancel the show," it tweeted yesterday.  

Smurthwaite herself first drew attention to the situation by tweeting: "My show at Goldsmiths SU tomorrow has been pulled because security say they cannot guarantee the safety of students. Seriously." An overreaction from campus security in any event, no? Except this doesn't seem to be the full story either.

Today, the Goldsmiths Comedy Society, which was sponsoring Smurthwaite's show, put out the following statement:

Despite many complaints from students about the content of Kate's act in the past we were planning to go ahead with the gig until Kate told me 24 hours before that there was likely to be a picket with lots of students and non students outside the venue. Up to this point we had only sold 8 tickets so I decided to pull the plug.

Smuthwaite and supporters are objecting to this "excuse," noting that Comedy Society shows tend to sell more tickets at the door. Whether you find this convincing or not—who cares? This is a matter for intra-campus debate, not bicoastal outrage.

A spokeperson for the Goldsmiths student union told HuffPost UK: "The Goldsmiths comedy society is a small volunteer led group. They made this decision independently from the Union and we support their right to decide who plays their gigs." 

Advertisement

NEXT: Busted Over $80 Worth of Pot, College Student Turns Informant, Then Turns Up Dead

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I guess lefty morons have free speech rights as well. I guess.

    However, your free speech rights do not include a right to give a particular speech at a particular venue at a particular time.

    This goes down more as a potential contract breach than a human rights violation, in my book.

    we support their right to decide who plays their gigs

    Finally, somebody who can express support for a fundamental human right (free association), without introducing the fatal “but”.

    1. I don’t think there is any real rights issue here. But it’s good to keep an eye on those who would like to silence people who they disagree with.

      1. But it’s good to keep an eye on those who would like to silence people who they disagree with.

        In light of the fact that she performs at fundraisers for the “No More Page 3” campaign, I’d venture that includes Ms. Smurthwaite.

        1. Probably. That doesn’t make the people protesting her any less absurd or dangerous.

          Am I correct in understanding that page 3 girls haven’t really been gotten rid of?

          1. It appears the campaign, so far has thankfully been a failure.

  2. Feminists unfairly smeared? The Horror..

    1. Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. They brought it upon themselves. There is nothing you could make up about them that rivals what they have already done.

      1. I’m picturing bloody tampons, everywhere.

        1. Eewww!!

    2. I know, right?

      Thanks, ENB. For a minute there, I was worried people would get the impression that campus feminists were humorless, uptight, moralistic scolds.

      1. Hey!! That’s my job!!

        /SOCON

  3. From the linked article:

    Tickets had been on sale for the show, entitled Leftie Cock Womble, for several weeks but the cancellation was only announced last night. And it had been advertised as free for members of the feminist society.

    So, even giving the tickets away, they could only get an audience of eight. Sounds to me like the Ms. Smurthwaite’s problem isn’t censorship. It’s that people don’t find her all that entertaining.

    1. So, even giving the tickets away, they could only get an audience of eight. Sounds to me like the Ms. Smurthwaite’s problem isn’t censorship. It’s that people don’t find her all that entertaining.

      And hence, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

    2. So, even giving the tickets away, they could only get an audience of eight.

      Well, no. They were offering to give away free tickets to people who vehemently opposed their message. It’s like offering to give away “piss christ” exhibit tickets to fundy christians or a meat tasting event for vegans — probably not a lot of takers.

      And they might have sold a lot of tickets at the door if they hadn’t cancelled the event.

      1. They were offering to give away free tickets to people who vehemently opposed their message.

        Not really. From the article, it appears that only some in the feminist society were offended. In light of the fact that Ms. Smurthwaite is a feminist, this sounds a lot like an internal fight.

        1. splitters

  4. Can someone please explain to me why I should care?

    1. Vous etes Kate?

      1. Please. As if french people care about themselves. If they did, they’d shower.

  5. I’m outraged at the apathy towards this outrage!

    1. I am apathetic toward the outrage at this outrage.

  6. Protesting is fucking retarded. What the hell is wrong with people?
    If you think that it is worthwhile to go protest the fact that someone who disagrees with you about something is speaking publicly, you really need to get a fucking life.

    I don’t think there is much of a free speech issue here. But campus activism like this is just silly, pointless and annoying. Let’s go have a protest where we take no risks, almost certainly will not affect anything and which everyone not on a college campus will ignore completely.

    1. If you think that it is worthwhile to go protest the fact that someone who disagrees with you about something is speaking publicly, you really need to get a fucking life.

      This cannot be said enough.

      OT: Fuck you reason and your broken ass fucking commenting system that only lets me post comments every tenth try!

  7. Do feminists enjoy any comedy? Do they even have the capacity for humor? Can one be perpetually outraged and laugh (or make others laugh) at the same time?

    1. I honestly thought all feminists were really just comediennes, because I laugh every time I read a story about em.

    2. Knock knock jokes and puns are the only kinds of humor they can tolerate. And jokes about how stupid and evil rich white men are.

      1. Wait, rich is evil in itself now!?

        Fucking Skynet.

        1. Not necessarily. If you’re Apple rich then you’re good and righteous. If you’re Microsoft rich then you’re hand wringing black hat evil. I’m sure you can see the difference now.

          1. Fuck me, why am I so dumb?!

            1. It’s just a function of your privilege.

      2. Knock knock jokes are ableist.

      3. Mostly it’s jokes about how stupid the typical targets of liberal feminist anger are.

        Generally, I’ve never found that humor about how much the people you hate suck works very well. Hatred and anger don’t mix well with comedy.

        Some people consider it “hard-edged”, and “biting”, although to me it just comes across as mean and bitchy.

        1. Some people consider it “hard-edged”, and “biting”, although to me it just comes across as mean and bitchy.

          This concept is completely lost on the left.

          1. There is nothing so joyous as shared hatred.

        2. It’s also just stupid and annoying to people who don’t whole-heartedly agree with you.

      4. Knock knock jokes are prejudicial against those with no hands. Especially to women and minorities.

    3. Telling stories about members of the patriarchy suffering misfortune would garner laughter I’m sure.

    4. Do they even have the capacity for humor?

      I’m going to go with ‘no’.

    5. You don’t even want to know.

      Yes, it is possible. However their “humor” mostly takes the form of vicious snark directed at their political enemies.

      Just see the typical Roseanna Barr appearance for an example.
      Lots of biting (not) humor lambasting stereotypes of men and right-wing politicans. I mean, not lambasting the styereotype itself, but the stereotypical male.

      It’s not terribly funny, but the audiences laughs REALLY REALLY HARD at it. They laught that hard because they hate the target of the humor that much. It’s hate-laughter.

      It’s all rather gross and ugly to watch, imo.

      1. Just by analogy, imagine what would happen at a Klan rally, where some KKK goon gets on stage and tells a series of racist jokes about blacks.

        You just know that no matter how lame those jokes are, those KKK members are going to LAUGH THEIR ASS OFF. Not because the jokes are funny, but because they have been liberated to let the hate flow as much as they like.

      2. Humor requires an element of uncomfortable truth. Lefties hate such truths, which is why the only thing they find to be funny is bad things happening to people they hate.

  8. “Smurthwaite is known around the U.K. for her Edinburgh Fringe show Lefty Cock Womble, as well as TV punditry and a very popular YouTube video called “Atheist Bitchslap.” She’s also somewhat controversial, in part owing to her support for the “Nordic model” of prostitution law, which makes patronizing a prostitute a crime but treats all sex workers as crime victims.”

    Man, this entire paragraph pretty much proves that the British left is even shittier than the American version.

    1. What we would considern left wing is considered centrist/ moderate in the UK. It would be funny if it weren’t for the strong possibility that we’ll be where they are now within the next decade or two (at most).

      1. Uh, I’d say we are there now. I’ve seen quite a few people on the free college bandwagon claim to be moderates.

    2. Hell, British Tories are largely shittier than the American left.

  9. OT: Here’s an ends-v.-means gut check:

    President Barack Obama has quietly handed out an extra 5.46 million work permits for non-immigrant foreigners who arrived as tourists, students or illegal immigrants since 2009, according to federal documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request.

    “The executive branch is operating a huge parallel work-authorization system outside the bounds of the [immigration] laws and limits written by Congress [and which] inevitably reduces job opportunities for Americans,” said Jessica Vaughan, the policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, while filed the FOIA request.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/02…..o-economy/

    Which is more important: open borders, or a functioning rule of law and separation of powers?

    Go!

    1. Which is more important: open borders, or a functioning rule of law and separation of powers?

      Was this intended as a real question? Because I can’t understand how anyone could possibly answer “open borders” and not be aborted for being such a fucking moron.

      1. Well, then you’ve never had this discussion on H&R before. The day Obama unilaterally legalized millions of immigrants, I was informed that this was not only okay, but a noble action on behalf of individual rights.

        1. Yeah, I think I remember calling that line of reasoning retarded then too.

        2. Thought experiment: Let’s say the president during Pol Pot’s reign of terror had proposed to allow anyone in Cambodia about to be executed by the Khmer Rouge safety in the U.S. Embassy, despite Congress specifically prohibiting it.

          Would you have mourned the disrespect for the separation of powers in that circumstance?

            1. Would you, if you were stationed at that embassy, kicked the refugees out the door into the hands of the waiting Khmer Rouge, knowing it would have resulted in certain death?

              1. Again, false equivalence: these people aren’t facing certain death at the hands of communist death squads if they’re forced to retutn home.

                1. Still, separation of powers is seapration of powers. Either it is legitimate for the president to make those exceptions or it isn’t.

          1. That’s exactly the same thing as the president running a parallel immigration system without congressional consent.

            There’s no difference between the things you just described. Hell, using your exact logic, all separation of powers should just be abolished using the argumentum ad Cambodia.

            “Oh, the president unilaterally raised taxes? Well, would you have bitched if he’d unilaterally saved Cambodians from execution?”

            “What’s that you say? The president went to war without any sort of congressional authorization? Whatever, I bet you wouldn’t be whining if he’d done the exact same thing to save millions of Cambodians.”

            1. I can just imagine the arguments on this subject before the Supreme Court now:

              “Well, Justice Scalia, I understand your concern. However, if the president had this totally unconstitutional power during the 1970’s, theoretically he could have used it to save Cambodians.”

              Sounds like a 9-0 decision in favor of the president to me!

              1. From my POV, the entire immigration restriction powers that Congress has assumed are unconstitutional, so any attempt to undermine those unconstitutional powers is justified, even if done for terrible motives.

                And since that government court SCOTUS generally rules in favor of the government when it assumes such unconstitutional powers, I couldn’t give a damn how they would have felt about this exercise in nullifying illegal usurpation of rights.

                1. That hinges on a tinfoil hat semantic argument that does really pass the smell test, i.e. regulating naturalization and immigration are completely separate things.

          2. False equivalance. These aren’t people who are about to become victims of war crimes.

            1. Where is the “about to be victims of war crimes” exception in the constitution?

              1. There isn’t one, just pointing out the idiotic “logic”.

          3. Congress would not have specifically prohibited it.

        3. I was informed that this was not only okay, but a noble action on behalf of individual rights.

          Who said that? A lot of people think it is good, all things consider, but aren’t wild about how it was done by the president.
          I have mixed feelings about it. I’m definitely in the open borders camp, but I fear this will ultimately be counterproductive, both from backlash from Republicans and in setting further precedent for executive action on things like this.

    2. RC, progress is what is important.

      Progressives like to make progress. They like to accomplish big things. How can you make progress and accomplish big things if your hands are tied? How can you get things done if your power is limited?

    3. Which is more important: open borders, or a functioning rule of law and separation of powers?

      Of course, that’s easy to answer when you oppose the policy in question. Now what if Obama were doing something to illegally rein in the NSA or the War on Drugs, or to ignore gun control regulations. Not so easy then, is it?

      1. Now what if Obama were doing something to illegally rein in the NSA or the War on Drugs, or to ignore gun control regulations.

        Reining in the NSA and gun control can be justified based on those things violating the Constitution. I happen to believe that the President has the authority, nay, the obligation, to refrain from doing unconstitutional things, and to stop his subordinates from doing unconstitutional things.

        The WoD is more complicated. You could make the same argument there, but its tougher because, as drafted under current SCOTUS reads of interstate commerce, its valid. The implementation is a horror show.

        1. Reining in the NSA and gun control can be justified based on those things violating the Constitution.

          And the same can be said for most if not all of our immigration laws.

    4. This one is particularly wierd since it likely harms blacks the most.
      They are in the greatest competition with recent immigrants for jobs.

      1. You’re assuming the president and the democrats actually want to help black people as opposed to taking their votes for granted/knowing economic depression will only drive them further into the democrats’ hands. It’s a win/win for them, they get more votes from the immigrants and keep they’re main bloc dependent on them. It’s all about counteracting white middle class flight for then at this point…

    5. My gut says to be happy for those with work permits, and to be OK if Congress decides to get off its ass and defend some of its powers.

      It’s a false dichotomy, anyway. It’s not as if this is the sole threat to the “rule of law and separation of powers.”

    6. They are equally important in every way.

  10. I need a ruling. Is it ironic the ad I get for this page is some hot chick asking if I want a date?

    1. Depends. Is she an oppressed minority? Why are you microaggressing her so hard?

      1. SWF.
        BC I’m MWM.

    2. No, it would have to be a feminist dating site for it to be ironic. The fact that you said hot chick proves that it isn’t.

      1. To be fair, if he lives in Florida we’re talking UK standards, basically.

        1. There is a plethora of women here. Black, white, Latina, Philippine, and some pockets of Asian. Also jewisess.

          1. Some even have full sets of teeth!

            /panhandle dweller

  11. OT, in Fargo, ND you need to first create an ordinance to get rid of wild jackrabbits.

    http://tinyurl.com/q2xo2kc

    More than 50 jackrabbits the size of small dogs have been hopping around backyards and a park of a new development in South Fargo…

    She said the city pest control department told her that they couldn’t do anything about the jackrabbits, technically wild hares, because they were wild animals.

    There is no city ordinance that deals with depopulating rabbits in the area, Fargo Police Lt. Joel Vettel told ABC News.

    “What residents can do is start a formal process to get an ordinance, which is usually done at committee meetings.”

    The stupid has been too much for me lately.

    1. They should just shoot the things. Then they can explain how killing is different from depopulating. Fucking morons and their fucking stupid words.

      1. Or just let the non-jackrabbit-sized dog into the backyard to deal with it.

        1. Yeah, I am sure my dog dreams of a yard full of jack rabbits…

      2. They should just shoot the things.

        Discharging firearms within city limits. Shooting rabbits out of season and without a license. Interfering with wildlife. Killing game without eating it. Discharging a firearm too close to a home. And I’m sure there are a host of other laws that I don’t know about that would be broken.

        1. http://gf.nd.gov/hunting/other…..er-species

          Rabbit

          The hunting season for the following species is open statewide year-round. There are no daily bag limits on these species.

          Residents:

          Residents do not need a license.

          Slingshots have come a long way.

          1. I’m genuinely surprised.

    2. Guns and dogs can take care of that problem. Why go to pest control?

  12. the “Nordic model” of prostitution law, which makes patronizing a prostitute a crime but treats all sex workers as crime victims.

    Maybe it’s just morning brain-fuzz, but this seems like some form of Orwellian doublespeak to me. So if a hooker says “Hey buddy, want a good time?” and I agree and have a good time according to the price she sets, I’m the criminal and she’s the victim?

    1. You have victimized her with your money.

      1. I’ve always wondered why, given the same reasoning, I’m not victimizing the janitor at the Mexican restaurant every time I crap in their bathroom.

        I pay money for a service, part of which includes access to the john. Now, not saying I don’t get it all in the bowl, but still, janitor’s gotta clean the bowl too I presume. Like the hooker, it’s often a humiliating job, and like the hooker, he’s probably only doing it because he’s poor, and there are hazards and diseases he’s exposed to as well.

        So I guess my question is, what’s the difference between sleeping with a hooker a hooker and shitting in a place with paid janitors? Am I making the case for requiring all toilet cleaning to be done by volunteers?

    2. I’m the criminal and she’s the victim?

      Yeah. You trafficked her, you monster.

      1. You trafficked her

        Is that what they’re calling it these days? In the old days it was just called fucking.

    3. um, welcome to feminism…

  13. “Have you any idea how it feels to be a Fembot living in a Manbot’s Manputer’s world?”

    1. Is that the opening line to your next story?!

      1. Please yes, please yes, please yes . . .

      2. If only…

    2. You would quote Bea Arthur.

    3. No can dunk, but good fundamentals.

  14. Up to this point we had only sold 8 tickets so I decided to pull the plug.

    *laughs like Nelson Muntz*

  15. There is no city ordinance that deals with depopulating rabbits in the area, Fargo Police Lt. Joel Vettel told ABC News.

    Call me crazy, but I read that as, “Fire at will.”

    1. You’re crazy. Everyone knows that which is not allowed is forbidden.

  16. “No, Campus Feminists Didn’t…”

    I think the recent invention of the “Conclusion-Drawing Headline” is something like the inverse corollary to “Betteridge’s Law” – where

    “”Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.””

    … is flipped to

    “Any headline which begins with “no” is actually trying to avoid people asking the question”.

    Which i think should be called “UPWORTHY’S LAW”

  17. We should conserve our outrage for important things like Violently Murdered Video Game Prostitutes, and Blaming Parents for Transgendered-Teen-Suicides

  18. Feminist comedian.
    Jumbo Shrimp.
    Military Intelligence.

    1. “Military Intelligence”

      You have watched too many reruns of M*A*S*H*.

      1. +1 Col. Flagg

  19. “because security say they cannot guarantee the safety of students.”

    That is a great reason to cancel *anything*.

    How about just posting signs to the effect “ATTEND THIS COMEDY SHOW AT YOUR OWN RISK”?

  20. new tradition

    holy war

    original copy

    plastic glass

    uninvited guest

    highly depressed

    live recording

    authentic reproduction

    partial cease-fire

    limited lifetime guarantee

    elevated subway

    dry lake

    true replica

    forward lateral

    standard options

    mandatory options

    mutual differences

    nondairy creamer

    open secret

    resident alien

    silent alarm

    mercy killing

    wireless cable

    business ethics

    lethal assistance

    genuine veneer

    friendly fire

    death benefits

    -George Carlin

    1. Meant as a reply to Notorious G.K.C.

      1. “death benefits”

        Depends on who gets paid, amirite?

  21. important things like Violently Murdered Video Game Prostitutes

    For some reason, this reminded me of some dumb movie with a guy saying,
    “Aww, look. Somebody done throwed away a perfectly good white boy.”

    1. Better Off Dead was not a dumb movie you heathen. I want my two dollars!

      1. “He kept trying to put his testicles all over me!”

    2. Better Off Dead is an excellent movie, you nincompoop.

    3. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT SAVAGE STEVE HOLLAND MOVIES

      1. Which is a dumb movie, not sure about Better Off Dead, never saw that one.

        1. Go that way really fast. If something gets in your way, turn.

          1. Do you know what the street value of this mountain is?

  22. Activist-comedian

    Elizabeth, this is an oxymoron.

    The YouTube I could find of Smurthwaite’s comedy is abysmal.

    A quick run-down:

    Make fun of Americans.

    Make fun of Americans again.

    Tell a story about her sister having her pubic hair waxed off, after assuring the audience she would never do such a thing.

    Something incomprehensibly British about having sex with your mother.

    Something about shampoo.

    1. If it offends *you,* I sure won’t look at it.

    2. I feel like we’re missing a Gargamel/Azrael joke here. Her name is just too close to “Smurfy” to not.

      1. Left-Wing Loonie Smurf.

        1. I’m not sure how you’d be able to tell. They were all communists.

    3. Tell a story about her sister having her pubic hair waxed off, after assuring the audience she would never do such a thing.

      It would be asking too much for someone to heckle her at that point: “Yeah, no hsit you’d never do it! I can smell your swamp muff from here!”

    4. Sounds characteristically retarded. One of the big reasons there are so few good female comedians is feminism. Most of them seem to get obsessed with throwing their stupid political opinions into everything (a la Sarah Silverman); they all seem to aspire to be feminist Jon Stewarts. They should be aspiring to be Norm McDonalds.

  23. It’s also from Men at Work.

    That’s the one I was thinking of. About garbage men, wasn’t it?

    I like Better Off Dead. Haven’t seen it for a long time.

  24. Wow, these feminist catfights are as much of a turn-on as a jello-wrestling match between Roseanne Barr and Hillary Clinton!

  25. Is it time to unsub from reason.com? I mean, when did it morph into the Jezebelle? Seriously, feminism is based on assumptions about the role of the state that are fundamentally at odds with Liberitarianism. Why is a feminist writing at this site?

    1. Why is a feminist writing at this site?

      Paycheck.

    2. Oh, shut the fuck up. Have you ever read anything she has written?

      A certain strain that has come to dominate contemporary feminism is most definitely at odds with any kind of libertarianism. That doesn’t mean that you can conclude that anyone who self-identifies as feminist is that.

      1. ” That doesn’t mean that you can conclude that anyone who self-identifies as feminist is that.”

        [‘that’ referring to ‘this‘]

        And this is true.

        But, it would be hard to distinguish the broad politics of that-sort-of-stuff versus this kind of thing…

        “If you’re in business in the United States, you shouldn’t be able to choose what classes of people you will or will not do business with. You have the right to not go into business, to choose a profession that will allow you to never deal with whomever it is you don’t want to deal with; you don’t have the option to go into business and then discriminate based on basic, immutable things ? or you shouldn’t have that option, anyway. “

        Other than that particular observation on the right of free association…

        …her contributions to the magazine “bustle” reveals no particular political bent other than OMG?! FAT SHAMING? AND *10 WAYS LIKE TOTALLY STUFF IS NOT EVEN NO WAY?!*

        (*note = i DO think “10 reasons to lift weights with your vagina” was a valuable contribution to libertarian thinking, FWIW; as warty would say = *needs moar squats*)

        1. ” the broad politics “

          This was totally unintentional phrase, BTW. No pun intended *at all*

    3. “Is it time to unsub from reason.com?”

      First you must IMBIBE

    4. Just to reinforce the point that libertarianism is only for men. We don’t want no uppity wimmins around here.

      1. “uppity wimmins “

        Au contraire

        I should think the *ideal* libertarian woman would be so uppity as to demand her orphan-slave-foot-massagers be flogged for having dirty nails

        Who else would provide the ideal consort for any self-respecting monocle wearer?

      2. Don’t forget Dorian Electra, who is *totally* older than she looks.

        https://reason.com/reasontv/201…..-libertari

    5. I think Reason measures the value of a writer’s contribution in the number of comments.

  26. Elizabeth, I think it might be time to consider the idea that you might not be a libertarian.

    This article here, like so many of your recent pieces, strikes a chord that most libertarians find vomitou, with a touch of hilarity.

    Why should we care as leftism eats itself? we should be egging it on–not tossing it a life preserver.

    You noted before, that original feminism had goals consistent with libertarianism, and you were right–seeking equality before the law for woman WAS a goal consistent with feminism. And it’s here. And those women got on with their lives happy to know that they’d won.

    The marxist collectivists that control what passes for feminism now are not and never will be interested in libertarianism.

    So make a choice. Which are you?

    1. Now, let’s not be exclusionary – a magazine called Reason should accept diverse perspectives.

      My only beef is, not with the inclusion of ENB, but with the *exclusion* of more “right-wing” voices like Robert George, who IMHO would have valuable contributions to make to the question of how to make the country freer than it is now. Of course, in a Georgian utopia, there would be more more govt. regulation than in Libertopia, but certainly *less* regulation than in the country we live in now.

      And let’s have more Easter articles and natural-law articles from Napolitano.

      1. ” a magazine called Reason should accept diverse perspectives.”

        prithee, quaff your beverage yarely good sir

        “My only beef is, not with the inclusion of ENB, but with the *exclusion* of more “right-wing” voices “

        “just more proof that the right-leaning posters here are completely out of tune with Actual Libertarian Orthodoxy, which is always reflected in the pages of this magazine even though i probably never actually knew the thing existed until last year”
        /resident-douche

        I actually think a “Feminist” perspective @ Reason is not just a positive thing: i think its absolutely necessary.

        The problem i have is that apparently what gets called ‘feminist’ lately seems to be so much apologia for the absolute fucking worst SJW horseshit that is anathema to any thinking person.

        In fact, i’d think a genuine libertarian feminism would be clawing the @#()*@$ eyes out of the version of it that Jezzy/Marcotte/Feministing claim to be the Vanguard of.

        at best it seems like we get much of the same basic ideas, diluted to reduce the libertarian gag-reflect.

        1. as an example of the latter – the recent ‘tut-tutting’ that we should really be taking Jessica Valenti et al and their promotion of the Rape Kulturkampf *more seriously*

          Not, you know, pointing out how fucking retarded it is, or that its destroying the credibility of ‘feminists’ everywhere.

          I think after the Rolling Stone thing she dialed back on that particular theme.

        2. I don’t think the ‘feminist perspective’ is any more necessary than the ‘masculinity perspective.’ And I know the feminist reply is ‘but everything else IS the masculist perspective.’ And that’s horse shit. Are there a bunch of writers here perpetually wringing their hands about every problem that disproportionately afflicts men? And how women contribute to them? Not that I’ve seen.

          If reason wants to do the ‘gender issues’ thing, fine, but at least be fair and evenhanded about it, instead of just more “reverse” sexist crap that clutters up the rest of the media. That’s one of the things I come here to get away from.

    2. It’s cute that you guys think I should have to justify my libertarianism to you.

      1. “It’s cute that you guys think”

        Please = the preferred-pronoun for commenters is ‘scum’

        1. Not “cis-scum”?

          1. Its optional.

            1. Also, I’m flexible (winks)

      2. It is, however, somewhat telling that you responded to Azathoth’s much more absurdist argument rather than Gilmore’s, where he directly quotes your previous writing and how that contrasts with libertarian beliefs on the right of free association.

        Defend yourself, heretic!

        1. Writers have the privilege of getting to choose their enemies. Most make the strategic, if cowardly choice to choose the weakest ones while ignoring the stronger.

        2. I actually am working on a longer response to that, fwiw

        3. I’d also posit that Ms. Nolan Brown responds to the weaker part of Azathoth’s argument, rather than the more problematic aspect. I don’t think it’s absurd to say that an ideology like feminism that, at its core, is a collectivist enterprise (it’s fundamental concern is the relative status of collective groups) is inconsistent with libertarianism. One inevitably has to give way.

      3. “you guys.” That’s sexist.

      4. No, I don’t think you need to justify anything to me–I think you need to ask yourself where you stand, what libertarian policies and, more importantly, processes you actually support.

        For yourself, not for me. If you are comfortable among the modern crop of feminists, you really need to ask yourself why that is when your beliefs supposedly make you one of their most dire foes.

  27. I’m afraid the facts of the story are completely 100% true and I have published the evidence precisely to stop people attacking me in this way. Please let me know when you publish an apology. http://cruellablog.blogspot.co…..proof.html

    1. “stop people attacking me in this way.”

      (re-reads piece)

      WTF?

      1. Kate Smurthwaite: “What’s reading?”

  28. Isn’t the feminist mantra on false accusations against men “well, you probably did something else to deserve it”?

    Considering the things feminists have shit down (speakers or discussions on male suicide, homelessness, pretty much anything that would raise awareness that the other half of the population suffers too), if feminists catch shit for something they actually didn’t do, I say, ‘well, you probably did something else to deserve it.’

    1. *Shut down, not shit. Haha.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.