They actually wrote a response article that is pretty funny.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2017/04 ... a-homepage
The Huffington Post South Africa has received an onslaught of messages and comments from those angered by the blog, particularly via our email address inviting corrections from our readers. Here is a small sample:
"I see a correction needs to be made on this article! The entire thing is misogynistic and also racist. If you could clear that up for me, that would be great."
"Congrats Huffingtonpost! You are now Officially the most racist website online! It was hard work, but just look at you now! PS Race is a social construct."
"Delete this article and fire this self-hating racist."
"Here's a correction. Delete your entire website. You absolute psychopaths."
"Lets do an experiment: 1 - copy this article in MS word 2- Hit "Ctrl+R" and replace "White men" with any other group, gender or ethnic background. 3 - Read the article again...Are you offended? If you are, why are you printing this garbage?"
"This article is racist towards white men. How can you allow this trash on your site? I've lost respect for huffpost, sorry, you are no categorized as junk along with the rest of the SJW trash that seems to persist on the internet."
"I think your editor meant to place this in the satire section or your local equivalent." Otherwise - and I say this as a person sympathetic to progressive political causes - I suggest they take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves "What the fuck is wrong with you?"
"White monopoly? Tell it to the ancient Egyptians, ancient Chinese. Get OVER yourselves. Want more, black folk? WORK HARDER! Come up with your OWN economic system. Stop the "mouth crap" and build a better FvKKinq mousetrap."
"Suck my balls. The world owes you nothing."
And that's not the worst of it. We've excluded the overtly racist, sexist and violent comments that are quickly gathering in our inboxes.
Following this they give a brief primer on feminist theory that rationalizes these hateful, bigoted ideas.
Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. In that sense, there was nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody (or so we thought.)... Dismantling the patriarchal systems that have brought us to where we are today, a world where power is wielded to dangerous and destructive ends by men, and in particular white men, necessarily means a loss of power to those who hold it. A loss of oppressive power. Those who have held undue power granted to them by patriarchy must lose it for us to be truly equal. This seems blindingly obvious to us.
And they wonder why white men don't vote for their inane policies?