> The author of this particular column is a writer of feminist literature so of course her views are going to be extreme.
The Guardian is a mainstream publication, not an extremist one. They can publish whatever they want, I’m just saying this rhetoric is hateful, unhelpful and possibly part of the problem of male extremism mentioned in the OP.
You can rest your case all you want, you're still wrong. The language in the original comment did not imply ALL journalists. You are arguing against your own misunderstanding.
Say anything you want is a lie. Let's see some real hate speech in a column targeted at minorities. You won't. So why should it be tolerated for any group.
>But... it's the column section? It's not journalism.
It is, however, a piece of work that the paper stands behind. If it were not, it should not be there; newspapers are curated, unlike, say, YouTube or a comments section.
>Are you saying mass media should stop the age-old tradition of the column section
We're saying they should exercise more discretion in what columns they publish. If they don't, they should give up any then-false pretense of being reliable, believable, reputable, etc. The local paper doesn't have to publish the column Crazy Herman sent in about how dragons are cultivating furries' minds for use as concubines, and doing so makes the paper look less respectable.
Plus, in a lot of online media, the Opinion columns are often interwoven among actual reporting, making it less obvious which each is. Especially with this format, which columns they choose to publish become part of the paper's image... and even if unintended, "I drink male tears" columns gives the idea that that publication supports dismissiveness of the emotions of men.
