Um, I think she's being facetious. She says "I'll make it easy for you" (trolls) then offers up the most out there opinion for them to latch onto. It's not real.

Actually, if you look up her previous writing, I don't think she is.

Weird? Seems like your basic garden-variety feminist to me.

Clearly facetious.

And male social-media icons have said things like this in exasperation--e.g., "Yes, I think all women should be barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove." And they get high-strung moonbats who take them literally.

Here's a quote from Bindel arguing against Twitter censorship. So perhaps she's trying to prove a point, either by getting herself banned, or by demonstrating that Twitter won't ban her because she's on the "good" side. So is she's a misandrist, at least she's an honest one. It could also be that her account was compromised. I'll withhold judgment at this point.

Pretty sure she's reacting to having her nearly every post trolled. So she's made it *easy* for the trolls by putting out a post designed to draw each and every one out, while pointing out to the rest of us how too many folks respond to all of her other posts.

Or not. Never heard of her before.

Am I bad because I laughed?

https://twitter.com/bosseone2/status/765524501182439425

Another: https://twitter.com/dexterhaggard/status/765259036379979776

Your thoughts?

Not clearly facetious. Maybe exasperated, but I think the sentiment is closer to the desire than not.

But in either case, misandry is not considered an actual social justice sin, so...

Perhaps she's never heard of the Constitution. Or realized that men are generally bigger and stronger and have most of the guns. And are laughing at her.

Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

More: "JFW is a law-reform group that seeks to change law and policy that discriminates against women in cases involving male violence."

So they push for harsher sentences for women then?

After all women commit in excess of 60% of all physical domestic abuse

And 45% of all sexual assalts

Seems sarcastic to me.

Hmm..

Seems like she's just pulling a Milo Yiannopoulos. Let's not forget that despite her being a Radical Feminist, she's a persona non grata for not bending over for the Trans community.

I reported her to guardian.com, but doubt it will help.

Luj, she's got tweets that demonstrate concern for male abuse victims--e.g., prosecution shouldn't be up to the victim, because too many male victims would not prosecute due to fear of looking weak.

This is what feminists believe. Nothing new here. Truth is often said in the guise of jest. It's a political movement to apply Marxist theory to the invented class differences of men and women to attempt to alienate the underclass/victim class (woman) from their bourgeois antagonists (men); of course it's built on hate, but, mostly just hate of the victim class as easily-led pawns.

Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake."

I was reading a history of life in the US around 1800. Mostly farm life. Work for the men was 12 to 14 hour days of brutal labor. Of course, women worked hard too, but inside, spinning yarn, cooking, sewing--not as brutal. No one ever died while sewing. Isn't it odd that women were not protesting the "patriarchy" that was keeping them from doing this work?

Never heard of her before - nor do I care to hear any more about/by her.

It sounds like SHE is the "troll."

I like her. Sarcasm should have it's own font. She's the woman who wrote that phrase about Brazilian transsexuals.

What phrase was that?

Craig, one of the most common causes of death for women was catching on fire while cooking. They had these big fireplaces and they moved about within them with their long skirts, and...

My source is the tour guide at the Peabody Essex Museum.

And childbirth, of course.

"My source is the tour guide at the Peabody Essex Museum."

Docents tend to be volunteers. Not historians.

People weren't stupid in 1800. At least the ones who survived weren't.

Childbirth was a huge risk right up to the early 20th century.

And horses and other livestock killed a lot of people, but communicable disease killed far more.

One of the best books for learning about life circa 1820 in New England
A Midwife's Tale, The life of Martha Ballard.

Read it carefully, and then read it again.

Speaking of death hazards, Conservation Magazine admitted a few years ago that falling birth rates around the world are no match for rising life expectancy. I.e., not only are we likely to have 10 billion people BEFORE 2050, we'll have a higher percentage of people over 60 than we ever did in human history.

I assume the elderly percentage wasn't nearly as large 30 years ago - never mind in 1800. So caring for the elderly on a mass scale - and/or helping them to care for themselves - is clearly a relatively new problem. What is NOT a new problem (it's been around for thousands of years) is an individual's need to think about how to manage one's old age without help, once one reaches the age of 40 or 50. Why? Because for centuries, one was VERY likely to die in one's teens or twenties, either in childbirth or on the battlefield, if not from childhood diseases or accidents. Once you got to 40, your chances of making it to 70 rose significantly - but chances are, all your children and/or grandchildren would be dead already - or simply crippled, poor, and unable to support you.

And in the 21st century, sadly, you can't assume the same thing won't happen to YOUR kids. That is, car accidents are one of the highest causes of death and disfigurement, so your perfect child could get hit on the sidewalk and become a quadriplegic.

My point is that shaming people for not wanting babies - or extra babies - is not the answer to caring for the elderly or generating more taxes. Neither is trying to deprive people of access to reliable birth control.

BTW, not so many years ago, the former Health Minister Hakuo Yanagisawa of Japan called women “baby-making machines” in a speech about the shrinking population. Wonderful.