A Letter to Post Columnist Eugene Robinson About His “War on women” Article
Robinson can't see that the "War on Women" is actually a War on Men
Dear Mr. Robinson,
Over the past few decades, I have read countless numbers of your articles. While I have disagreed with some of them, I’ve always considered your columns to be thoughtful and well-reasoned.
I do, however, consider your recent article, We are witnessing a war on women, to be a notable exception. I respectfully ask that you take the time to read this open letter and to thoughtfully consider what I say here.
As a brief introduction, I’ve been a proud, lifelong reader of the Washington Post who nevertheless has long noticed the paper’s feminist-inspired gender bias, most notably its publication of the op-ed Why can't we hate men? in 2018. Since that repulsive diatribe, I’ve been sending letters to Post columnists who have written articles that perpetuate this bias.
Your article is yet another example of the Post’s feminist bias.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with your article’s central theme, that conservative lawmakers, courts, and religious leaders are implementing draconian measures on reproductive issues, notably Southern Baptists’ recent call to restrict in vitro fertilization.
But your article – and thousands of others like it that mindlessly echo the feminist claim of a “war on women” – reminds me of the answer Ernest Hemingway gave when once asked what quality was most needed to be a great writer: “a built-in, shockproof, crap detector”.1
Mr. Robinson, with all due respect, before you again write about a war on women, you need to turn your crap detector back on.
Only then will you be able to see that feminists have waged a 60-year long war on men.
If you doubt the accuracy of this last statement, let me again call your attention to the aforementioned Post op-ed Why can’t we hate men?, a #MeToo inspired rant by a women’s studies professor who had the gall to openly and shamelessly express a Nazi-like hatred for men in a major American newspaper.
Particularly as a longtime columnist and a managing editor at the Post, and a 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner, do you think that by printing an article that by its very name must be considered “hate speech”, the Post falls short of the true spirit of its “Democracy Dies in Darkness” slogan?
Do you think that it was appropriate for the Post to have published it? Do you think, as some of the article’s more than 3,300 (vastly negative) commenters responded, “just change ‘men’ to ‘Jews’”, is a fair summarization of this hateful diatribe?
Or consider the Post’s imbalanced coverage of domestic violence,2 that helps propagate a hateful feminist lie, that domestic violence is almost entirely “men beating up women”. The truth is that women perpetrate at least half of intimate partner violence. For proof, see my post about Feminism’s Big Lie.
Or how could the Post have so grievously embarrassed itself3 by publishing the op-ed by Amber Heard (and the ACLU) that a jury unanimously decided defamed Johnny Depp, had it not been thoroughly bamboozled by six decades of feminist distortions and outright lies about domestic violence?
Beyond the Washington Post, to understand the reality of a war on men, you might want to first review Feminism is a Hate Movement: In Their Own Words. This post documents just a small segment of an almost limitless number of hateful, misandrist quotes made by feminists over the past 100+ years.
This list doesn’t mean that all women — or even all feminists — support these hateful statements. Rather, too many feminists refuse to renounce such hate speech:
“It isn't fair to judge a social movement by its few inevitable nutbars. But when the mainstream of the movement refuses to distance itself from extremist elements - when, in fact, it embraces them - there's a problem.” — Donna Laframboise, in her book The Princess at the Window: A dissident feminist view of men, women and sexual politics.
Next, may I suggest reading two books, both written by women, that specifically document a war on men … and boys:
In The War on Men author Suzanne Venker4 wrote,
“With such overwhelming evidence of female power, how can anyone—no matter what their political persuasion—believe there’s a war on women? We have it backwards. Men are the ones under attack.
To a large segment of the population, the idea that men can be victims at all is preposterous. “Everyone” knows there’s more work to be done for women to achieve so-called equality. “Everyone” knows the patriarchy is alive and well. That is the message of the feminist elite.
Americans have been had. Feminism isn’t about equal rights, nor is it about providing women with choices. I don’t care how pretty feminists package their agenda—the mission is clear.
Feminism is a war on men.”
In The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men, author Christina Hoff Sommers said,
“We have turned against boys and forgotten a simple truth: the energy, competitiveness, and corporal daring of normal males are responsible for much of what is right in the world. No one denies that boys’ aggressive tendencies must be mitigated and channeled toward constructive ends. Boys need (and crave) discipline, respect, and moral guidance. Boys need love and tolerant understanding. But being a boy is not a social disease.”
Being a boy is not a social disease.
Mr. Robinson, I can only hope that you’ve read this far. If so, I thank you. I pray that I’ve opened your mind to damage done by feminism’s six-decade long campaign against males and masculinity.
If I have, with all due respect, please take time to evaluate and recognize the Post’s gender bias and help me to convince reporters, columnists, and management at the Post that their own feminist-inspired, anti-male gender bias is facilitating a war on men and boys.
Please, turn your crap detector back on.
Sincerely,
Stephen Bond
Publisher of "Letters to The Washington Post" Substack
I have used this same Hemingway quote in other letters to Post columnists as I feel that it’s particularly apropos
My observation was confirmed by a February 2023 report by The Coalition to End Domestic Violence that described a 10-Year Suppression of the Truth on Domestic Violence by the Washington Post. The report concludes, “The Coalition to End Domestic Violence calls on the Washington Post, in a timely manner, to run an editorial acknowledging its biased coverage of the domestic abuse issue, and to publish articles that focus on the plight of male victims of domestic violence.”
Especially with articles like this one online:
“A publication with any semblance of ethics might have asked Depp for comment about the sexual violence claims before running with the allegations — then subsequently spiked the op-ed or sicced its reporters on the case for more fact-finding. But not The Washington Post.
“That paper, which loves to blather in its self-important tone about how “democracy dies in darkness,” didn’t bother to turn the lights in the direction of Heard’s claims. Instead, it gave her a free pass to air her dirty laundry against her ex-husband and consequently enabled her to paint herself both as a victim and a crusader of the Me Too era.”
Venker is an outspoken critic of feminism who speaks out the movement’s “… false messaging women have absorbed about men, sex, marriage, work and family”. She has written other books critical of feminism including 7 Myths of Working Mothers: Why Children and (Most) Careers Just Don't Mix (2008), The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can't Say (2011), and The War on Men (2013). Interestingly, Venker is also a niece of anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly.