2. Jeff Fecke states that Jared Loughner is an 'extreme misogynist'--directing us to an article that provides no reason for viewing Loughner a misogynist.
A thread of similarity, is all: Points 1 and 2 both include faith-based charges of misogyny. In each case, the person advancing the charge reacts with pique when evidence is questioned--and during subsequent give-and-take, the misogyny-locator reveals an aggressively obstructionist, wounded attitude toward any challenge.
Observing the public rhetoric of Prof. Jessica Pieklo, over some months, one is reminded of a fanaticism that sometimes finds comfortable home in feminism. The fallen feminist seeks to deflect criticism via willy-nilly accusations of gender-based abuse--eventually basing her identity in the affirmation she experiences when lobbing mindless charges. (It is merely a sliver of feminism with which I am today taking issue.)
[Fecke is not interested in pursuing our dialog: 'Gavin, I’m not going to hold your hand for you.']
If he's unwilling to talk, of course, we are invited to speculate:
In order to achieve honorary male feminist status, Fecke may feel incentivized to refrain from providing evidence, when hurling the charge of misogyny--as a subtle expression of solidarity with his aggrieved sisters.
I am not arguing for the good character of Jared Loughner, and I don't deny he may be a misogynist. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that Jeff Fecke asserted the charge, initially, without evidence: He's so good at finding misogyny he implicitly asserts the right to identify it by nose alone.
Fecke considers my line of inquiry nitpicky; I consider it weighty--and pray I never have to admit accusing anyone of misogyny alongside spurious evidence.
