Exhibit 0040

Daddy-Daughter Dates Definitely Aren’t Sexist or Weird

Irate Feminist

A. THE SOURCE

1. Don’t waste your time here.

B. THE TEASE

2. A feminist (male or female) is someone who supports the idea that women should have the same political, social, and economic rights as men. When not calling attention to such issues as gender restrictions, sexual harassment, or the pay gap, feminists are no more or less fun-loving than anyone else. Just because feminists are interested in an unpleasant topic doesn’t mean they “hate fun.” Otherwise, you could just as easily say the same about oncologists, or Philadelphia 76ers fans. Nevertheless, employing 40-year-old stereotypes that are meaningless to its purported target audience, Chicks on the Right ridicules feminists as angry “Gloria Steinem-ites” favoring “bra-burning and hairy armpits.” Conversely, COTR’s hip, “made-over” female conservative writers describe themselves as “stiletto-and-Sephora-wearing, hardworking chicks” who “don’t mind a great dirty joke, like men who hold the door open for us, and don’t FLIP THE FREAK OUT if they sneak a peek as we’re walking by.” You’ve come a long way, baby.

C. THE IMAGE

3. Stock photo of a woman (not the blogger pilloried in the article) who fits Chicks on the Right’s conception of what a feminist looks like. Evidently the giveaway is that she has brightly colored hair and a bitchy expression on her face; but for all we know she’s an irritated Trump voter in central Pennsylvania railing against Obamacare on her way to church.

D. THE HEADLINE

4. The proper term would be “feminist” hosebeasts. It’s official: Chicks on the Right hates grammar. For those not fully versed in misogynistic slang, Urban Dictionary defines a “hosebeast” as “a woman who is ruthless, evil, and outright objectionable in both physical and mental presence.” It also refers to a woman who frequently performs a certain act not typically associated with feminists. Despite COTR’s pluralization, only one such “ruthless, evil, and outright objectionable” woman is implicated here — blogger Elizabeth Broadbent, a homeschooling Catholic mother of three boys.

5. Broadbent (on behalf of her fellow hosebeasts) wrote that she was uncomfortable with the creepy sounding concept of “daddy-daughter dates” advocated by some Christian conservatives, in which a young girl gets prettied up and goes for a night out with her chivalrous father, so she can be treated “like a princess” as a kind of practice run for relationships with boys (and, you can be sure, only boys) her age when she’s older. Broadbent opined that, beyond the aforementioned creepiness, these “dates” serve to “enforce patriarchal notions of femininity,” earning the wrath of Chicks on the Right. In COTR’s indignant response, one of the suddenly not-so-laid-back Chicks calls women like Broadbent “hateful, arrogant, beastly hags” (apparently “hosebeasts” wasn’t descriptive enough) and accuses them of “breaking down the traditional family and the strong network for society that it’s been since the beginning of human history.” Yes, for thousands of years, fathers have been dressing up their young daughters, taking them to romantic dinners at Red Lobster, and posting weirdly fawning accounts of their evenings on the Internet. And sometimes a bit more than that, according to the Bible (see Genesis 19:30-38).

E. THE NUDGE

6. We’re not sure who Chicks on the Right thinks is doing the ranting here, but it’s not Broadbent, as can be ascertained from reading her thoughtful and even-keeled piece, no matter how many names she gets called. Too bad the Chicks’ own daddies didn’t teach them that insults are the least persuasive form of argument, and reveal more about the sender than the recipient.

NITWITIA SCORES

Pandering 5/10 • Idiocy 4/10
Banality 4/10 • Vileness 7/10