Just how much conservative anti-woman bullshit will you people put up with? This much?
Because the internet needed to put more rage-fuel into my fantasies about screaming "HULK SMASH" and hurling my computer across the room, today the Washington Post decided to run an op-ed titled, and I am not making this up: "One way to end violence against women? Stop taking lovers and get married." Yeah, ladies! All this violence against you is obviously your own fault! Just go get married already! Brilliant. (The paper later changed the headline, likely when someone with an actual soul stopped by the op-ed desk to call them all ruthless victim-blaming asswipes.) It's just a basic, bullshitty piece dropping a few statistics around to say that women are statistically safer when they are married, so, um, you should go get married? I guess that's considered an argument?

This piece, of course, comes just a day after the WaPo published a George Will op-ed saying that in the campus sexual assault epidemic, "victimhood" is a "coveted status that confers privileges." CLASSY.

But if you want to know more, you really don't need to give them a single click. Instead, feel free to read the article where it really belongs—sandwiched in between venomous curses and mockery and actual non-shitbrained analysis. Like over here on Jezebel, in this glorious post by Erin Gloria Ryan:

If you were playing a NOT ALL MEN drinking game with this column, your first shot comes in the second paragraph, and by the end, you'd be dead of alcohol poisoning and despair.

Wilson and Wilcox (who I'll be henceforth referring to as SonCox to both eliminate the redundancy of the Wil and convey my disdain for this piece of piping hot garbage) are asserting that yes, some men hurt women, sure. But some men are not bad. Once women get married, Bad Men who might hurt them transform magically into Good Men who will protect them from Bad (unmarried) Men who prowl around looking for kids and ladies to rape. That's because, they argue, men care more about their female partners and kids after they get married because ~*marriage*~.

The pair also seems to believe that in addition to magically turning Bad Men into Good Men, marriage covers women with a Mithril-like cloak of protection that thwarts other (Bad) men who are out there victimizing single ladies left and right. Because there's a statistical relationship between being married and not being crime victims, therefore the aura of a husband must be the root cause of this statistical association...

Ladies, it's just SCIENCE. (Which we can't understand anyway, so let's just take 'em at their word.) Obviously, instead of working to end violence against women by addressing the perpetrators of the crimes, the quickest path to personal safety is simply for all women to go snag a man, make him put a ring on it, and just hope and pray he's not the wife-raping, wife-murdering kind. Statistics!

Except, says Ryan:

It doesn't take a pair of conservative think tank darlings wearing their most blindery, agenda-driven thinking caps on so tightly that it cuts off all circulation to their brains to realize that attributing all of these things to marriage is either stupid or deliberately obtuse. Everything that SonCox has dubiously attributed to marriage is actually—and solidly—associated with wealth.

NO SHIT. I heartily encourage you to read Ryan's whole post, then to join me in a simple, satisfying quest: Anyone know where some Washington Post newspaper boxes are and have a few spare bucks to go pay for a paper, open the door, shit in the box, and close the door again? Anyone?