This is not the way Milo Yiannopoulos should have gone down

Milo Yiannopoulos on “Real Time with Bill Maher”

I doubt very much that a gay man in pearls and lipstick was unanimously seen as an ideal CPAC speaker, yet they were going to allow it. The only redeeming thing about the alt-right’s collection of white supremacists, anti-Semites, and misogynists, is that they hadn’t turned on homosexuals yet.

Looks like that’s likely come to an end.

After some tasteless and hurtful remarks that Milo Yiannopoulos made about child sexual abuse that he was himself a victim of came to light, he has become a pariah on the right.

Now? Not when he went after Leslie Jones or Anita Sarkeesian? Not when he helped amplify fascism, slandered immigrants, suggested that education was entirely wasted on women, or any of the other appalling things he’s said and done? This? Come on.

I read Yiannopoulos’ initial explanation about his comments, and his clarification, as well. I think anyone who feels they should have an opinion on this should also read them in their entirety, and further consider Dan Savage’s amended take on them.

What bothers me about this situation so much is that Yiannopoulos was obviously groomed by a trusted authority figure — a priest to whom he had surely poured out his child’s soul, no less. Grooming young people and children to win them over before abusing them is astonishingly effective. No bruises, no kidnapping, no obvious coercion, and for years afterward, the person they grow into ends up repeating things their abuser taught them to believe.

It takes so long, and is so much work to get these people’s words out of your mouth, to get their lies out of your head. The mental violation of being told that you were being loved when you were being tortured — being compelled to believe this to save your dignity — is extreme. And then when you’re working it out, out loud, you’re more likely to get targeted for harassment for saying something wrong than your abuser is, though he is the one who hurt you in the first place.

So Milo makes a bad joke about a terrible crime committed against him, and instead of having a teachable moment about the effects of abuse on victims, this is what costs him everything he’s worked for. Having been publicly vulnerable about his own victimization, having a hard time responding as he ought when a stranger is pressing him about an extremely private and inexcusable betrayal of trust, does in his career.

It seems that when you’re an abuse victim who’s spoken out, but you have too many enemies, that will be the thing that does you in.

Meanwhile, the left overlooks Janet Mock’s description of commercial sexual exploitation as a child as being an “underground railroad” that paved a “pathway to… survival and liberation.” (Mock was even a featured speaker at the Washington, DC, Women’s March in January.) The left overlooks Sarah Nyberg, who Yiannopoulos outed for running a bulletin board service about child sex abuse (even Nyberg admitted this was true). The left has overlooked Salon’s pro-pedophilia articles, which Yiannopoulos complained about, but that remained up until this week.

Indeed, the left has long overlooked Melissa Gira Grant and the Third Wave Fund, who stated confidently in 2010, in apparent contradiction to federal trafficking laws that define all trafficked minors as victims of exploitation, “that not all young people who do sex work and who are impacted by the sex trade are victims.” Curiously, that statement came out about a month after Craigslist founder, Craig Newmark, a Third Wave funder, was questioned over his company’s refusal to remove ads for child sex trafficking that brought in millions of dollars in revenue. Funny how that doesn’t come up when Newmark is trying to make a comeback as a philanthropist, via a fawning Nieman Lab interview where he is asked without apparent irony, “Seven years ago — is that when you started both your attention to more actively supporting the free press?”

In recent years, Yiannopoulos has put tremendous effort into pushing back against child sex abuse apologism in the press. I have to wonder, where has everyone else been?

I don’t like Yiannopoulos, or agree with him politically. He did and said hateful things to and about women and just about every marginalized group imaginable. But winning at any cost, costs.

While liberals may be celebrating his downfall, despite the fact they may believe it is too late, ultimately I don’t think pressing the buttons of those conservatives who probably already think that most gay men are pedophiles, to get them to treat a gay man who was a child sexual abuse victim as if he were a predator, himself, will be a win. I think a lot of his fans are likely to come to see him as a martyr to a very selective prosecution; and a fan base such as he has isn’t going to go away overnight. I think this will make victims of child sex abuse more fearful to speak out, seek help, and have the kinds of conversations they need to in order to make sense of what happened to them, lest they say the wrong thing.

If Yiannopoulos quietly goes away and stops spreading hate across the internet with his troll army, that’d be fine with me. Though things rarely turn out as I would like them, and I suspect that his supporters won’t forget how this went down.

Natasha Chart
Natasha Chart

Natasha Chart is an online organizer and feminist living in the United States. She does not recant her heresy.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • shawna sick

    We have a president that has said,done and encouraged incorrigible things…most in the same vein as this despicable young man.I wonder when the last straw will finally come for Donald. I’m sadly sure it would take much more than this, and it should take much less,considering HIS job.

  • Pod0riji7

    When it’s time to allocate the real power after ‘winning’ the White House… what loyal handmaidens do we see getting cut loose..the woman,Conway, the gay guy, Milo. I wonder if they thought they’d get a token taste of power. They must have.

  • northernTNT

    Excellently written and nuanced. Though I despise much of his politics, some things are clearer in origin.

  • Sandi1951

    Natasha… most excellent. I am posting this everywhere! You are my kind of Heresy ! Thank you so much for you time and thought put into an issue that should be a top priority, which, for some reason, always gets relegated to the back of the bus. How is that?

  • Milo’s pro-pedophilia remarks became an issue because of his trans-critical statements. That’s why this open secret became amplified and a big deal made thereof. Milo made his living deliberately offending people, and he targeted a group with the establishment support to fight back. The pro-pedophilia positions of trans activists are not criticized because Milo’s offense really is about trans-critical politics. That said, I’m not so sorry to see Milo go down, and I don’t mean to defend him. He certainly offended me.

    • meantambourine

      Nah. These remarks became an issue when a group with “Reagan” in their name made them an issue. Trans activism certainly does not have “establishment support” with any group capable of pressuring CPAC.

      • John Stuart Mill

        Don’t be so sure about that. There is big money and some big names behind the current “trans” fad/cult: Pritzker (billionaire), Jackson (multi-millionaire), Rothblatt (highest-paid “female” CEO), the Wachowskis, Jenner, etc. There is BIG money behind promoting the current “trans” agenda and crushing any opposing or critical voices: radical feminists, right-wing gadfly provocateurs like Milo, traditional Christians or Muslims, moms & dads worried about social contagion and kid’s privacy rights, etc.

  • GenderCriticalDad

    Yes hes an obnoxious opinionated bell-end. He was molested as a child. He made a sick joke about it & played down the harm it did him. As survivors often do. But none of this is what its really about.

    He’s being bought down because he is a threat to the transgender industry, its associated and highly paid gender experts, the huge potential market for a lifetime dependency on hormones and the chance to prescribe blockers to millions of teenagers.

    A gay voice against trans is a real threat to a lot of bottom lines.

    That’s a lobby that spans the left right divide. It unites homophobic Christians, greedy drug companies and virtue signaling clueless keyboard activists.

  • Liz

    someone tried to show me that interview yesterday…I don’t think he quite knew who Milo is, so I can’t say he was gleeful. but I felt uneasy and didn’t really put my finger on why until I read this article. Thank you for adding clarity and thoughtfulness.

  • Julio

    Salon should have never had those pro-pedo articles up in the first place. It was very telling that by using social justice language, the author presented a defense for his pedophilia. Without that kind of virtue signaling, it would have been rejected by Salon. And now it’s only taken down, not because of a change of heart, but because they didn’t want to risk validating a political adversary (kinda like how liberals attack radical feminists for being ‘bedfellows’ with the Christian right.) The moral relativism of liberals is repulsive. At least conservatives are open and very concrete about their principles, as brutal as some of those principles can be.

    • calabasa

      I completely agree…this is why I always say “at least conservatives are more honest about their vileness; liberals lie about it and present it as social justice.” Liberals are the ultimate concern trolls (“oh the poor sex workers are being turned against by the radfems against prostitution!,” anyone)? Liberals gas light and use doublespeak on a regular basis. Hypocrisy is part of the backbone of liberalism (although now the right has jumped on the bandwagon, using identity politics to push their own agendas). I agree that the moral relativism of liberals is repulsive. I also love the term “virtue signaling.” Absolutely. Liberalism/neoliberalism/pomo academia–it’s all one and the same: upholding old values by pretending they’re new and also “empowering,” using buzzwords for “virtue signaling,” and being careful to praise the sparkly wardrobes of all the right kind of naked emperors, who preach and pontificate without saying anything at all.

      • Sandi1951

        Left or Right, they are both screwing women. The right hides behind religious morality. It is a duopoly paid for by the war machine. They are all hypocrites.

      • Tobysgirl

        I could not agree with you more thoroughly. I have no respect for the vile nastiness of right-wing attitudes, but it can be much easier to speak with an avowed racist than a well-meaning “liberal.” The former person does not attempt to hide his attitude while in my experience I have yet to meet a liberal who is not also racist but covers it with a thin veneer. And I won’t even go there with grotesque liberal attitudes regarding women’s existence, women’s rights, women’s oppression. I would rather someone be honest with me regarding their beliefs and thoughts because then I can choose to interact or not interact with them on that basis.
        For anyone who believes liberals possess true concern for women, all one needs to do is bring up transgenderism. “Some of my best friends are transgender!” “Why can’t women just accept men as women?” let alone the moaning about the terrible violence done to transgender biological males (always at the hands of other males, a fact conveniently left out).

  • Alex Todorov

    My sympathy for Milo is rather limited, and this is coming from a gay man, who has been sexually abused as a child! It was a conscious decision for him to become the ‘Alt-Right’s’ Golden Boy, it was his decision to become the right wing’s token Jew and token gay man and “Provocateur” Supreme but now he will realize that his token status comes at a price, it always comes at a price. I wouldn’t be surprised if Breitbart fires him (if it hasn’t already), maybe his “Daddy”, Donald Trump (yes, Milo call him Daddy), might even ‘disown’ him.

    And if the right wing disowns him, where is he going to go, what is he going to do? He has alienated virtually every natural ally and every marginalized group I can think of and, on the other hand, conservatives are beginning to show their distaste for him, which was bound to happen sooner or later. His only real fans, who are most likely to remain loyal to him, are all the edgy straight white boys, who think their freedom of speech is acutely endangered because they can’t say n***er or f*g or make all the rape jokes as often as they’d like without receiving backlash – and even they’d have to put extra effort into ignoring his *ahem* flamboyancy.

    In the end, I hope he finds peace – preferably without disturbing anyone else’s peace – but I will hardly lose any sleep over his fall from grace.

  • FierceMild

    Thank you for writing this. Articles like these are the reason Feminist Current stands as an example of actual ethics in journalism.

  • WeWillWin

    Thanks Natasha for the article but I don’t agree. I’m a survivor of child sex abuse and trafficking and I absolutely don’t agree that a history of abuse should be used to absolve current crimes. Milo has waged a full on attack on women, refugees and people of color.

    A large number of abusers were themselves abused. But what matters is how we choose to deal with it. Many survivors choose empathy and reject the behaviors and values they absorbed during their abuse. Many make heroic efforts to heal, in a society that does not support them. Others choose to forge forward as an abuser, which Milo has clearly done.

    Eminem was abused too. Should we excuse him for trying to kill his wife and promote violence against women through his songs (as he would like us to do) because he was abused?

    • Sandi1951

      Both the left and right have sold women down the river.

  • lk

    I read some of Milo’s interview with Bill Maher and he said: something like “I want people to be able to be, say and do anything.”

    Milo’s whole schtick is spouting racist and sexist garbage under the guise of caring about free speech. He just says whatever he thinks will get a rise out of people. I think his use of the word boy in the podcast was intentional because he knew it would piss people off to even imply that sexual relationships between boys and men were okay.

    As the author says, I think this will only make Milo into a martyr, I do no think this is his downfall at all. I think someone else will publish his book and he will tout it as being a victory for free speech.

    I’m not going to lie its kind of fun to watch him scramble around and apologize for his choice of words when he is always saying that words don’t hurt people and everyone needs to stop being babies about what people say.

    TBH, I’m scratching my head because Milo has said some truly vile, disgusting things…so I’m kind of perplexed that this is the thing that set off conservative criticism of him.

  • John Stuart Mill

    There is a dangerous thread of child/teen abuse apology in gay male culture going back for decades. See: NAMBLA. While most gay men reject this, many joke about it (“chicken hawks”) because many experienced it first-hand as kids or young teens. Making rude, shocking jokes about it is a kind of “whistling past the graveyard”. As a child rape survivor, I have tremendous compassion for any other survivor, including Milo. But he needs serious therapy in privacy, not to be enabled and financially rewarded for passing his suffering on to another generation.

    • FierceMild

      I think Socrates was hemlocked about this, and Plato was unapologetic about wanting to be paid for his tutoring with the use of his prepubescent student’s bodies.

  • Michelle

    This strikes me as rank hypocrisy, not to defend Yiannopoulos, but for years now there have been all sorts of men calling for lowering of and removal of age of consent laws meant to protect children from being exploited by adults – MRA’s, leftists, atheists, sceptics, progressives, the mainstream media has posted articles on that subject and articles promoting the claims of paedophiles to be harmless. They’ve said all the same things as and far more, hiding it under claims about maturity and wringing their hands about close in age cases when it is really about adult men being enabled to predate on younger and younger children with full sanction of the law. They haven’t overlooked this, they’ve actively promoted this themselves but suddenly when this might affect men themselves they are singing a completely different tune.

    Yiannopoulos says that, and not even the worst of it like evo psych claims and they all rush to clutch the pearls. If Yiannopoulos is merely wrong on this point, they appear completely morally bankrupt in the rush to condemn and it will backfire on them.

  • Raysa_Lite

    I know a lot of people that have been sexually abused. And it irks me a little bit when an abuser is defended with the reason “but he was abused, too”.

    Nope. Horrible things happen to us. And those of us with empathy remember how those horrible things felt. And we would do anything to keep from inflicting those horrible things onto others, especially kids.

    And the many women that suffer sexual abuse don’t sexually abuse. Not enough to be statistically relevant, if at all. It’s always males that sexually abuse children that say “but I was abused, too.” It’s just another excuse in a miles long list that males use to escape responsibility for their own choices and behavior.

    So, milo was abused by a male. So sorry, but I am supposed to care about this? Why?

    Because I could not care less. I will save my concern, care, energy and attention for the children and women that suffer at the hands of males everyday.

    He gets as much sympathy from me has he has shown for the women and kids that he has ignored or been dismissive of. Which is exactly ZERO.

  • Why (!) are we talking about Milo? Patriarchy, 101.

  • Lucia Lola

    Great article and resulting discussion. Excellent points being made all around but I’m going to bring up one, which is the sexualisation of young people. Not young adults, sorry, but teenagers are not adults, at least not under eighteen and the idea that puberty signifies sexual maturity is one that been pushed by the far left and third wave feminism and one that seems a okay unless it’s against young boys. Not always though, but enough to be remarkable. There is a witch hunt feel about this situation with Milo, true, and it’s beyond galling having other child sexual abusers come forward to denounce him (Nyberg is one), so forgive me if my jig around this person’s social grave is a bit restrained.

    I can’t stand him, truly, I don’t, and I found him dangerous to women, but the yardstick he’s being measured with is the same that should be placed along others who claim to be his enemy in the social sphere. That it’s not tells me more about this situation than anything else.

  • Dylan Griffith

    Hi, very good article, I think it was very nuanced and acts as an excellent counter weight to some of the other things being said on this topic in the media. It was actually brought to my attention on twitter that Peter Tatchell had, in a 1997 letter to the Guardian, waxed lyrical about the benefits of certain kinds of (sexual) relations of boys and girls with older adults – boys and girls between the ages of 9 and 13 (these are his ages, not mine). Clearly, the left has a very big problem with hypocrisy on this issue – why we think it so terrible (and to be clear, it is so terrible) to talk nonchalantly about sex between adults and minors when Milo does it, yet it isn’t terrible when those same minors/young adolescents are watching pornography (or the “whole history of human depravity”, as someone else put it) is kind of awe-inspiring, not to mention the attempts by Mock and others (apparently Tatchell) to normalise child/adult sexual relations; cognitive dissonance at its very best.

  • pyrite00

    I read Jezebel for a laugh so I can tell you that the transaboos there have cried rivers of tears with M2T Janet Mock over a child murdering male not having his pronouns respected. The libfems there seemed close to rending their own garments over traitor Manning being treated like most male prisoners are treated in prisons for men. And Jezebel has resolutely refused to cover how M2T Dana Rivers murdered two lesbians and their son late last year.

    So my advice to Milo is —- claim to be trans. You have the lipstick and the pearls already. You will instantly become the most oppressed person ever and have a legion of rapid transaboos who will defend any despicable thing you have ever done because transphobia.

  • Noreia Martinez

    I have been around gay men for 15 years, close friends and my closer network of friends. I have never known anyone who fits more with the far right discourse than these gay men. They hated women, they were disgusted by women and their genitals, they treated women like instruments for their happiness and would drop them for anything and anyone who they’d considered more interesting at the time. They touched these women’s bodies and thought it was ok because they were gay. They commented on these women’s appearance and designed their clothes. They decided on what is beautiful and feminine for women although they’re interest in women was purely aesthetic and not in their wellbeing. Most gay men I know joke about sexist issues, misogyny, child abuse. They have clinged onto their male privilege and in most cases their white or young privilege to put down those more oppressed than themselves. I’m sorry but I don’t agree. I think he deserved to go down even harder for joking about paedophilia and being so shallow and cold. His shallowness of his own experience is his own fear to confront what happened and empowers paedophiles. It’s time for victims to step up their game and fight against abuse and not enable it. Most of these gay men were totally against what and who is different from them, profoundly xenophobic.

    • Tired feminist

      My experience with gay guys is similar. Most I had closer contact with were ALL THE TIME making unsolicited remarks, some of them quite hurtful, about women’s bodies, clothes and behavior. One of them called me a “little slut” during normal, face-to-face conversation, in front of others. If you dare to call them out, they cry homophobia (or “transphobia”, depending on how much lipstick they have on). They LOATHE women and discovered that being gay makes their misogyny come across as cool.

  • skilletblonde

    Quote: ” I doubt very much that a gay man in pearls and lipstick was unanimously seen as an ideal CPAC speaker, yet they were going to allow it. The only redeeming thing about the alt-right’s collection of white supremacists, anti-Semites, and misogynists, is that they hadn’t turned on homosexuals yet.”

    I’m going to respectfully disagree with this. White supremacist doctrines have always been strongly opposed to homosexuality. It’s appeal and deification is straight, white, males. A trip to the horrifically racist Stormfront or the Daily Stormer. will verify that. But these blatant racist websites, are not the most threatening. The dangerous groups are the ones that have moved into mainstream American politics. They are the crypto Nazis. Kellyanne Conway, television spokesgoblin, and Counselor to President Trump, and Steve Bannon, known white supremacist, and White House Chief Strategist, are members of the Council For National Policy. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center ( an organization that monitors hate groups) the CNP is a hate group. It’s roster is comprised on anti-Semites, neo-confederates, and anti-gay activists.

    CPAC the right-wing group that invited Milo just two years ago disinvited two conservative gay groups from their conference. Go Proud and the Log Cabin Republicans were told to get lost. Let’s face it, conservatism is really a polite synonym for white male supremacy. That explains why many gay males are attracted to this lot. But why was the the flamboyant Milo invited to the ultra-conservative, despotic, CPAC? After all, the right-wing has two other popular gay spokesgoblins for their cause. Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report and Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit are just as misogynistic and sexist as Milo. So why Milo? Well, Milo has that British accent. Americans hear it and they automatically think smart. He’s young too. He’ll put a bright, shiny, spin, on old bigotry. That accent will make the racism and sexism sound soooo intelligent.

    Lastly, I’m not feeling any empathy for Milo. Not a bit. He has denigrated people who have been victims. Now, he is trying to solicit sympathy for his victimization. He represents a string of Brits like Piers Morgan and Andrew Sullivan that have been able to come to America (with failed careers left in Britain) and .become wealthy. America’s racism, sexism, and overall dysfunction can make you rich. Milo has been around for 2 years, and he’s already worth nearly a million dollars. Think about it, a college dropout, tech editor, has major influence on American political discourse. Now, you see why American democracy is collapsing?

    By the way, google what Kellyanne Conway said about Lesbians.

  • Independent Radical

    Honesty is the real virtue in my opinion.

    (I get that virtue signalling is stupid but using the word “virtue” in a negative way seems liberal in the same way that using the word “moral” is a negative way is liberal. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to be a good person.)

  • Dexterette

    You are allowed to bury your head in the sand. You’re not allowed to make it a requirement that the rest of us who don’t suffer the same affliction do so as well.

  • Dexterette

    And usually at the behest of males as well.

  • Rich Garcia

    @aylunebpapyrus:disqus Implying that a person’s opinion isn’t valid because of who they are or what they look like is a form of bigotry and thought policing, and an exercise in real privilege and exclusion by dismissive liberals telling people, especially women, to shut up because they don’t fit their victim cred requirements. Liberals are all about servicing who they determine to be the bigger victims, rather than addressing tangible forms of oppression, and this makes them ineffective in the long run.

    A woman who is straight, white, thin, or doesn’t perform and conform to feminine stereotypes is just as susceptible to discrimination and sex-based violence as a woman of color who isn’t thin, isn’t attracted to men, or is heavily socialized into gender because of her culture by the very simple fact that she is female.

    And I know women don’t need men like myself to state the obvious, buy any brand of “Feminism” that censors or excludes women, takes the focus away from females and puts it on gender (which is male-oriented social conditioning), and emphasizes individualism over collectivism is not Feminism at all. Even the idea of a “Third Wave” is a joke, and is as one commenter pointed out to me a long time ago a reactionary backlash against the Second Wave.

    • FierceMild


  • Alienigena

    “If Yiannopoulos quietly goes away and stops spreading hate across the internet with his troll army, that’d be fine with me.”

    Going to go off on a bit of a tangent … par for the course for me, I suppose. I just listened to an interview on CBC’s The Current with literary critic, Jessa Crispin, where she talks about what is wrong with modern feminism and why she is not a feminist. I think we know why she is not a feminist, she is a postmodernist, for whom everything (including feminism) is vaguely defined. She says that she does not understand the difference between human rights and feminism. Maybe the difference is that women are so frequently characterized as subhuman, despite being included in human rights declarations made by the UN amongst others. So until women are considered fully human and treated as such (in law, in the family, in the bedroom, on film sets, in the workplace) we need feminism.

    I find people like Jessa Crispin as noxious in many ways as Milo Yiannopoulos (MY). She muddies the waters around feminism and is given prominent platforms to do so. She says that she is against celebrity feminism and rejects capitalism (and the “Lean In” pseudo-feminist doctrine) and claims to have read a great deal of feminist literature … but she doesn’t seem to have read much by second wavers or the current crop of radical feminist writers/thinkers/activists or even people like Caroline Fine who de-bunks the notion of a distinctly female brain.

    The Current episode did include a brief clip of Meghan Murphy talking about what feminism is, but the editors of the program seemed to be willfully ignorant of the basic message of radical feminism which is to acknowledge and fight against the systemic oppression of women by men, most specifically male violence against women (in porn, in the sex industry, in the home, in the workplace, etc.). That can include economic/financial violence.

    If MY was taken down for the wrong reasons then Jessa Crispin has been given a platform for the wrong reasons … because she rejects feminism. I mean what is new about that stance, it seems a common enough declaration, made by many women (past and present). Most women I know have always rejected feminism and tried to disassociate themselves from it. The feminist film festival (the herland film and video festival) I volunteered for had endless discussions about whether to remove the term feminist from the festival’s name, ultimately they did, it didn’t save them from dissolution. It is more than time to acknowledge that a literary critic has nothing to say about feminism. Astonishingly, she says her rejection of feminism is due in part to the fact that modern feminism is only concerned with which tv programs are most woman-friendly … what has she been reading (Bitch Magazine?) or smoking?

    • Meghan Murphy

      That interview was AWFUL. I was shocked by how clueless Crispin was even about her own arguments! She is getting so much press in the US and seems to have no idea what she’s talking about, but saw a chance to pitch a gimmicky book proposal, I guess?? Good lord, I weep for what passes as feminist analysis in North America.

  • Dylan Griffith

    I totally agree, but I was reproducing his argument, not mine! But yes, you are right

  • Cassandra


    • Eve

      Dont forget #Notallwomenhavepenises

  • Cassandra

    I think the set she’s known are more common than one might imagine. I’ve run into it time and time again.

    • Ariel

      Attitudes like misogyny are as common in the LGBTQ community as in the larger community. Just like racism or…road rage, etc.

      • Cassandra


  • Cassandra

    male = adult
    female = child
    woman = anything anyone wants it to be
    violence against women = all the huge variety of people and things committing violence against women. Elephants. Aliens. Other females. Bunny rabbits. Santa Claus.

    It’s a wild word world in this here patriarchy.

  • WeWillWin

    Yes, but you chose to be a feminist and do something to help women and other abuse survivors, not to cash in on neo-fascist provocatuering. The reverberations of Milo’s words are wrecking peoples lives, even killing people as we speak.

    I relate to what you say though because before I expanded my knowledge and got a deeper understanding of abusers and how cunning and manipulative they can be I too would empathize and make excuses for them when they were or claimed to have been abused.

    We feminists and survivors need to up our game and get clear on who we’re dealing with.

    One book I read recently that helped me to deepen my understanding is “Healing from Hidden Abuse” by Shannon Thomas

  • Independent Radical

    It’s a fact that children are usually immature and bad at taking into account the long term consequences of their decisions. Recognising this doesn’t mean not caring about children. That said, I don’t think women are obligated to be all sweet and caring. Anger is a perfectly fine motivation for activism and I have every right to be angry at people who don’t allow children to have a period of innocence in which their lives aren’t dedicated to obsessing over whether they’re physically attractive enough to sexually please others (WHICH .

    • Pod0riji7

      What happened to your “The real defenders of paedophilia are liberal academics”? etc..etc
      Leaving any mention of your Fox news at it’s worst level main claim in your initial comment saves you from defending your words, you assume.
      As does phrasing your reply as if opposition to pedophilia itself not your spurious claim about “liberals” of various sorts being the “defenders & path makers” to pedophilia was being criticized.
      Insinuate and be all defensive and and you won’t have to address your “The real defenders of paedophilia are liberal academics” hyperbole, you assume.

      You assume incorrectly, about many things, some core to radical feminism Perhaps you should examine other assumptions you’ve made?

      • Cassandra

        You may want to learn the difference between “it’s” and “its” before you use a word like “hyperbole” again. The way you’re defending academics is ironic in the context of your writing, so what are you really defending?

  • Independent Radical

    I can’t tell give you names unfortunately because it was years ago, but I’ve heard this stuff being preached at my university by lecturers and tutors.

    I’m not blaming children for paedophilia, but I don’t think academics should be advertising the fact that such behaviour exists to an adult population that includes paedophiles and implying that it’s a good thing (normal/common doesn’t mean good). This is just another way of sexualising children.

    I think people should have a certain level of maturity before they start engaging in any sexual activities with anybody or even by themselves. I’m generally suspicious of easy, quick sources of pleasure and think that people should learn how to think long term before they start indulging in them. My “sexual awakening” (for lack of a better word) at age thirteen (I had no interest in sex before than and neither did my friends) caused a dip in my school performance, because it became a distracting compulsion for me. I wish I had developed more self control before I had that happen.

    Sexuality wasn’t part of my childhood and I was perfectly happy doing other fun activities. Sexual pleasure isn’t a human right and our culture places way too much importance on it. I could’ve lived a full life never having known that sex existed. Having it shoved down by throat has only caused unnecessary frustration in my life.

    Unless we seriously change the way that sex happens, I don’t think it’s something we should be promoting it to children (though a basic education in human biology that doesn’t imply that intercourse or any other sexual activity compulsory is fine), especially since they don’t know how to form deep, loving, egalitarian relationships since I consider to be an important part of a truly healthy, non-compulsive sexuality.

    • Pod0riji7

      What pray tell, were you being tutored in and the tutor started talking about how pedophilia is a good thing?
      And setting aside male sexual predatory behavior, Porn culture, the Catholic Church, MRA talk, other religions, a patriarchal society, the pedophiles themselves and many other things. Why are “liberal academics” out of all these things “The REAL defenders of paedophilia”?

      And with creepy timing this pops up in the news moments after I typed this.

  • Independent Radical

    Not all active atheists are blatant women-haters though (Bill Maher isn’t even really an atheist, he just pokes fun at religion). Most of them are regular liberals, which isn’t a good thing either, but I don’t feel it’s fair to mischaracterise the movement, especially since it is important to take on religion as a source of women’s oppression and it’s better than refusing to be critical of anything (which is what most liberals do).

    Just because sexual abuse has always been happening doesn’t mean it’s always been happening to the same degree. Since the rise of pornography and sexual liberals, shit has gotten worse for women and girls. I’m not denying what occurred in the past, but we can’t act as though recent social trends are irrelevant.

    • Michelle

      Yeah, no true scotsman. Suddenly, on being called out they were never the darlings of the movement ever

      It’s your assumption that anyone is saying recent social trends are irrelevant, but what is being really said is that it isn’t a new thing, rather a new manifestation of some very old things and that it is deeply hypocritical to clutch the pearls when both sides actually hold the same attitudes.