Safeway fired my daddy....

[Occulus]

24. Fine. I didn't think you would 'get it' anyway, so I'm perfectly willing to spell it out.

On the "Pornography harms" thread,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2278376

you were shrilly hysterical regarding supposed, rampant exploitation of nearly every woman involved in nearly every porn film made anywhere ever. You made repeated unfounded accusations, multiple proclamations which were often completely lacking any reasonable connection to the topic, and you coated it all with the slick, oily sheen of presumed female victimhood (not to mention, apparently, inherent moral superiority) by any man that has ever watched any porno ever.

Everyone who reads that thread will observe what I've described.

[font size="4"]Yet here you are, on this thread,[/font]

making what is essentially a needless sexist prejudgment (not to say, insulting to the child's ability to write so clerarly if she did in fact write it, which you can't know in the first place), the prejudgment being 'that looks male' (there being no true "male" or "female" handwriting). This leads me to the observation that some women who are "concerned" about sexism against women are, to a degree, sexist themselves.

Ironic, isn't it?