This article is actually pretty good. He addresses the absurdity of the local feminist hysteria pretty well, and lays it out pretty thoughtfully. Just because it doesn't sit well with your predefined worldview doesn't make it hateful, or crass, or whatever you're trying to paint it as.
I mean, really, where is all this 'street harassment' that's supposedly my fault? I know plenty of local women and I've barely heard a word of it. Yet I'm supposed to believe it's an epidemic? Nah.
Plus, I don't think the nazi reference is any more hyperbolic than the sexist drawings featured in the Stranger article. Those drawings remind me of the similar caricatures of jews and blacks you might find on, um, less savory websites.
See what I mean?
If anything, it seems like he's taken a page right out of slog's simplistic, but evocative approach to blogging. Except he appears to be more adept at identifying actual problems than you are, Cienna.
And if you're going to go after him for making a straw man from your panicked, paranoid fantasies about our city, maybe you should resist doing the same with his article?
I get it. The internet thrives on brief, punchy writing. But mischaracterizing his article, paraphrasing it sarcasitally, then adding 'um --' and addressing an entirely unrelated point isn't exactly working in your favor either.
All you're doing is making it ideological and rallying the troops who are already die-hard fanatics of your ideology. And if you're going to treat (poorly reasoned) feminist rhetoric like a religion, you're going to be prone to emotional reactions to quite valid criticisms such as this one. From an outside perspective, it makes you all look so silly.
Take the criticism on board. Consider his points because he made some good ones.