Within hours after Dr. Emily Grossman debated Milo Yiannopoulis on British TV yesterday, she did what all the #shirtstorm feminists did last year when faced with a backlash from their unreasonable complaints: She tweeted about how all her vicious hate mail proved her point, that she was the victim of widespread misogyny. The difference, this time, is that her debate opponent responded appropriately and offered to see some examples of her hate mail so that he could defend her honor. When she declined, he did not let it drop there. He asked a researcher to go through every single one of Dr. Grossman’s received tweets from yesterday – all 567 of them.
The conclusion? None of them were patently offensive or threatening. Most of them were supportive. From Breitbart:
We found no instances of outright misogyny, though there were of course plenty of boisterous comments and lots of criticism of Grossman’s arguments. There were a few obliging comments about her looks, as there were about mine, but I presume Grossman is mature and sensible enough to take compliments as intended.
The result of Mr. Yiannopolous’ little research investment is amusing, but his question is legitimate. Why do feminists routinely cook up false charges of crippling misogyny and hatred when they are criticized for their positions in debates? I can’t answer that, but I can attest to his point being firmly rooted in reality.
When the so called “ShirtStorm” feminists carried out a Twitter war on Dr. Matt Taylor during the Rosetta comet landing, the bulk of their response to criticism was to shriek about misogyny and “death threats.” No actual threats were ever reproduced, although a few ‘mean’ responses were provided. Even the male feminist “white knights” got in on the false outrage.
Despite being very educated (Dr. Nicholas Evans, above, is a professor), these people insisted on using a weird kind of ad hominem-twice-removed defense where they used the bad manners of random internet commenters to invalidate the criticism of the hoard of scientists and engineers who disagreed with their tactics. This intellectual equivalent of “shoot the guy across the room from the messenger” went on for days. It became their substitute cause and only response to all the legitimate criticism of their hollow arguments. And today, Dr. Grossman is showing herself content to follow the same distractive formula.