I am seeing a lot of outrage over Clementine Ford's threatoid against men. I get it - if a man said it about women he'd get banned from Twitter for it - but in trying to excuse it she did something I consider far more egregious than that jab. She promoted 2 harmful myths.

The fist one is that men "exploit" women's unpaid labor. Let's unpack this narrative for a moment.
Traditionally, men used their labor to obtain financial resources and were expected (socially AND under the law) to use it to support their families.
That is STILL expected of them.

When a family breaks up, the husband was and is STILL expected to use his labor to earn financial resources to support his ex-wife and children.
Have feminists EVER described that as an arrangement wherein women exploit men's paid labor?
If so, I haven't seen it.

Women have never faced that expectation. Even when a woman chooses to bear children without making a family in a household with their father, she is not expected to be a breadwinner. Welfare exists to support her and her children. Child support exists to supplement it.

Traditionally, as the financially supported spouse, a wife took responsibility for maintaining the household and for childcare. Much of the work involved - cooking and cleaning - is work she would be doing for herself if she were single, childless, and worked to support herself.

Further, the law will not penalize a woman if her carpets are not vacuumed, her dishes and laundry are unwashed, and every night's dinner consists of take-out, as it does men if they fail to financially support their families, especially if their family is estranged from them.

Women's socially & legally accepted options include declining to partner with anyone, political lesbianism, actually not being straight, straight & declining sex, using any of a plethora of forms birth control to avoid parenthood, being a sole or co-breadwinner, homemaking...

...being a married mother who neither works nor is a homemaker, and being a divorced mother who neither works nor is a homemaker.
Her gender identity will not be challenged regardless of which path she chooses. It's not socially acceptable to shame her for her sexual choices.

Even if she chooses to have heterosexual sex and fails at or declines to use birth control, she can choose to kill the developing baby via abortion and it's not socially acceptable to shame her for that choice. That choice is also protected by law.

Men do not have the same socially accepted spectrum of options. It IS socially acceptable to shame them for turning down a woman's interest and advances. A father who chooses not to marry & fulfill his traditional provider role is labeled a deadbeat.

A man who chooses to be childless is treated not like he has taken responsibility for his reproductive choices, but like he has been irresponsible.
A woman can choose to be unemployed, and it's still socially acceptable for her to expect her husband to do half of the housework.

It's not equally socially unacceptable for a woman to shame a man for his sexual choices. In fact, she can call him abusive for it and be taken seriously.
She can engage in birth control sabotage to override his reproductive & marital choice and not be presumed malicious.

She can trap him between presumed "deadbeat fatherhood" and becoming a husband and household breadwinner, and not be labeled an abuser for again, using sneaky measures to override his choice. It's socially unacceptable for him to want recourse or escape from that abuse.

If she does choose to engage in housekeeping, the standards for how she does that are up to her and her acceptance or rejection of other women's housekeeping standards. Her husband cannot force her to do this work, nor is she legally or even socially subject to his standards.

In fact, if he tries to impose a standard on her chosen activity of housekeeping, he could be labeled an emotional abuser for complaining about her failure to meet it.
In no way is women's "unpaid labor" men's fault, male-imposed, or male-directed, much less exploitative.

That brings us to the second: "Punching up."
Most of feminism's complaints rely on presuming women victims of their own choices, blaming men for those choices & for not protecting women enough from their consequences, and demonizing men based on that narrative.

The term "punching up" is used to excuse unprovoked aggression that is not an act of defense against another entity's aggression by claiming the puncher has some right to it on the basis of legitimate but not directly related grievances.
It is total bullshit.

The idea that the mere demographic-based identity of a target justifies aggression stems from bigotry. "I hit person X but it's ok because they're a [identity]" is hateful regardless of who person X is or what their demographic is.

No amount of fear or resentment, even if it is legitimate, entitles anyone to exemption from reasonable standards for their behavior toward other people.
Anyone who does not understand why thinking it does is a dangerous path to go down needs to learn some war history.

Every atrocity ever committed by any demographic group against any other demographic group has been rationalized by a train of logic that began with treating the aggressor's fear or resentment of the target group as a justifier. They ALL thought they were "punching up."

Of course Ford & people like her are assholes for publicly wishing death on the demographics against whom they hold prejudices. It's shitty behavior that should be socially unacceptable.

However, demonizing & attempting to excuse aggression against those same groups, they are bigots of the most dangerous kind - THAT deserves widespread outrage and condemnation. That behavior is far, far more egregious, and one against which everyone should be on their guard.