Valentines Day at The Washington Post
Just Another Day of Anti-Male Gender Bias
Post-publication note: I had meant to include a note that the three offending comic strips described below are reflective of the cultural anti-male bias that has flowed so freely throughout the world, so I don’t specifically hold the Post responsible for not censoring them.
Except the third one, today’s completely and obviously offensive “Loose Parts” comic. How in the world can such a hateful and distasteful comic be published in a national newspaper?
The Washington Post has for decades promoted a feminist-inspired gender bias against men, most notably its imbalanced coverage of domestic violence.
This bias was prominently flaunted in 2018 when the paper published two undeniably gender-biased articles: Why can’t we hate men? and Amber Heard’s infamous op-ed that ultimately embarrassed the Post¹, cost Heard millions, and proved beyond doubt that men can be victims of violent women.
Since then, I’ve been sending letters to Post columnists who have written articles that perpetuate this same gender bias.
Although this isn’t a letter to any specific Post columnist, I’ll be adding it to to the list of these letters to the paper.
I found three examples of this same anti-male bias in today’s comic section.
Does anyone else think that it’s ironic that these comics appeared on Valentines Day, a day that is supposed to be dedicated to love between the sexes?
Wumo
WWFS: What Would Feminists Say If It Were WOMEN Being Disrespected for Bringing Flowers and Chocolate? (Which, by the way, is USUALLY EXPECTED OF MEN ONLY!)
Offensiveness Level: 8 out of 10.
Non Sequitur
WWFS: What Would Feminists Say if it Were the Father Telling a Story About a Princess Being Turned Back Into a Toad?
Offensiveness Level: 10 out of 10.
Loose Parts:
WWFS: What Would Feminists Say if Cupid Had Shot a Woman Instead, and Apparently Being Left on the Wall for a Whole Year?
Offensiveness Level: OFF THE F****** CHART!!!
For other letters to Post columnists see my Letters to The Washington Post list:
Especially with articles like this 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.”
By Stephen Bond on February 14, 2023.
Exported from Medium on February 28, 2023.