butts creepy empathy deficit entitled babies facepalm men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rape culture sexual assault sexual harassment twitter

Tweet of the Day: Women not wanting to be slapped on the ass is “identity politics BS” at its worst


It’s PLEDGE DRIVE time again! WHTM is now ad free and entirely dependent on folks like you for its continued existence. If you’ve donated already, THANKS! If you haven’t, and you can afford it, please DONATE HERE NOW! Thanks again!

By David Futrelle

This guy is an ass, man.

Dan Tucker ‏ @Dan_Tucker99 Follow Follow @Dan_Tucker99 More Replying to @ClinicEscort I am now terrified of women. Used to be you could slap em on the butt and they would just giggle. Now they run to the boss and police station. Scary would with this identity politics BS.

Damn these women and their uppity butts!

Can’t we just go back to the good old days in which men could just go around slapping all the asses they wanted to slap and the women attached to these asses would just giggle and flutter their eyes. Because that was a totally real thing.

But now “identity politics” has gone and ruined this innocent male pleasure, what with women insisting on bodily autonomy and so forth. Because everyone knows that identifying as a person who has the right to control what other people do to their body is the WORST kind of identity politics of all.

I would add more, but as you can see from that tweet’s amazing ratio, plenty of other people have already said plenty to this ass-slapping enthusiast.

Here’s the best rebuttal to non-consensual ass-grabbers that I’ve seen so far.

48 replies on “Tweet of the Day: Women not wanting to be slapped on the ass is “identity politics BS” at its worst”

Glad he is scared of women.
If thats what it takes for this trashmaggott to stop assaulting women, GREAT. Be scared.

Hey – nice!!! You’ve got a monthly option for donating now! *thumbs up*
Many thanks for your posts – sometimes it serves as far too visceral a sanity check for my own comfort, but that there are male allies out there, much less ones engaged full-time like you are, keeps me hopeful. Good luck with your pledge drive, and keep up the good fight!

[Content note: the following contains an semi-graphic mention of violence]

Tell me about it! I still remember the time some big guy grabbed my mentor, N’s, ass in a redneck dive. She just took his hand in both of hers and smiled winsomely at him. She was still smiling as she as she took two of his fingers in each hand and twisted.

If Mr. Tucker thinks women going to their bosses and the police is scary, he should thank his lucky stars that he doesn’t know what four fingers breaking at once sounds like. And I don’t mean just a little broken, either. I mean the “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men” kind of broken.

…identity politics?

Well, I suppose that terrible identity in question is women being all uppity and deciding to identify as actual people with rights to their own bodies, rather than identifying as mindless life-support systems for pleasurable body parts. Damn it, people can just decide they want to be anything nowadays!

Yes, I remember how random men used to have the right to slap a woman on the butt, and she would appreciate the effort he went to. Good times!

Dear Dan Tucker:

What the flying fuck are you terrified OF? That women could now kick your ass for smacking theirs? Should have happened long ago…like as long ago as you used to do it. That it didn’t, is down to sexism. Which we don’t fucking miss, no matter how much you do.

PS: That “giggle” wasn’t pleasure. It was nervous embarrassment. And thinly veiled disgust.


I legitimately cannot imagine how horrible it must be to be in a situation where socialization forces you to just accept some fucking creep putting his hands all over you like it’s just ‘normal’. Good on her to put that asshole in his place and Dan Tucker can go die in a grease fire.

I have to shed my tears for the man who can no longer slap the butt of whoever he wants to, he now has to suffer through the indignity of (gasp) CONSENT before he can do so!

The horror!

It was written in reply to a woman tweeting this

Being a feminist in 2018 is a never-ending Groundhog’s Day nightmare of thinking “ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WITH THIS” and “THIS IS THE LEAST SURPRISING THING IN THE WORLD” in the very same instant, every time you get online.

What’s that rule about the responses to any tweet about feminism just going to prove the tweet’s point?

Do these people just seek out any tweet with the word feminist in it just so they can spew some only tangentially related bile over it?

Do these people just seek out any tweet with the word feminist in it just so they can spew some only tangentially related bile over it?


Also communications of any kind containing the words “equality”, “justice” or “woman/women/woman’s/women’s anything“.


Well yes! Consent absolutely defeats the purpose of casual sexual assault.


PS: That “giggle” wasn’t pleasure. It was nervous embarrassment. And thinly veiled disgust.

One of my favourite things to come out of increasing gender equality is men having to finally learn to understand and give a shit about what women think to gain their respect/approval, failing miserably and suffering for it. (:
(I mean, not really, the human cost is too high and women suffer for this probably way more than men do. But I like to imagine sometimes!)

Somehow I’d take the whole “identity politics is evil” thing with a tad less of contempt if it didn’t come from people who take their “identity” as the one ordained by god / evopsych / assfacts for all of us whether we like it or not.

People who are so horrified by the idea they should consider how they treat others that they call it “a war on men”.

People who were so horrified by the first president in 44 being black they went on about “taking their country back”.

People who were so repulsed by the idea of the commander in chief having a vagina that they voted for Trump as the lesser evil.

People who have decided their own identity must be a defining factor for where how and when all other people may be allowed to pee, marry, have children or not, buy cakes and so on.

That isn’t “identity politics”, apparently.

It gets even “better”. He replied to a comment asking why he slapped their butts in the first place saying they were asking for it by wearing tight pants.
Such a piece of s***.

I feel a song coming on.

Well old Dan Tucker was a fine old man,
Slappin’ women on the can
Now they’re threatenin’ him with jail,
Why are chicks such tattletales?

Get out of the way, Old Dan Tucker,
It’s too late for whiny fuckers.
Slapping’s over, creeps are skulking
Old Dan Tucker sits there sulking.

Honestly, I hope this guy ends up in a video like the one at the end of this post. I feel like he deserves at least that.

@ Marshmallow Stacey Maximal:

I happen to be interested in old movies. The upside of the internet is that a lot of them are now watchable on YouTube. The downside of this is that for every few comments of innocent appreciation, there’s someone who likes old movies because “ah, the Good Old Days, when men were men and women and gays knew their place,” usually while simultaneously praising the same movies for being “non-political.” Bonus points if the movie on which they’re commenting was (a) noticeably political and (b) progressive for its time.

@ Moon-custafer

You Tube comments are close to the worst expression of humanity I know of (well, that don’t actually involve death or torture…)

I used to live in the Arabian Gulf, and watched You Tube for Have I Got News for You, which some kind person would always upload in good time.

It’s a panel show with a different host each week (usually a professional comedian), two male team captains, and a guest on each team. Sometimes one of the guests is a woman! Sometimes, even, the chair is a woman.

Every time a woman comedian was a guest, someone would comment, usually fairly quickly, how this woman was just not funny and how women comedians were useless. They would make the same comments when the chair was a woman comedian.

Which struck me as odd, because while the panel get to adlib, the chair’s script is scripted.

The same team writes the chair’s script every week, whether it was a guy or a woman – as in fact the credits show. But the comments about not being funny never appeared when the chair was a man.

It’s almost as if something else was going on…

These people really have a hard time wrapping their heads around the Golden Rule, don’t they? “Do unto others…” and all that.

Speaking of “Gold”, our illustrious Trump-like Premier just took a photograph with Faith Goldy and some of her volunteers (she’s running for mayor of all things). Goldy attended FordFest (an outdoor barbeque the Fords have held for going on 20 years) and got a photo taken with Dougy, which is now making the rounds on social media.

Spoiler alert: he’s not denouncing her.

We’re all doomed.


And don’t forget any tweets or communications of any kind that have any racial component. These guys are like spiders, they lie in wait to pounce on all of that. (I really don’t wanna insult spiders though. I actually respect those.)

I don’t think the poster quite understands the meaning of the words Identity Politics. In fact, I’m pretty certain that most of the White people who denigrate that term don’t understand what that term actually means because they often fail to recognize that they ALSO have identities, and that it is White people who invented all of that in the first place. These are the same people who have spent the past 500 years labeling everyone else as less than as a means to create a hierarchy.

Its awfully convenient that now that the idea of having “Identitiy” isn’t working quite so hard on their behalf, the people crying the loudest about identity politics want to do away with the concept of everyone having identities. That’s rather self-serving, and disingenuous. I think they’re upset because they can’t use their own identities to bully people in the manner to which they had become accustomed.

Yes, that’s the one. This is definitely a prime example of Lewis’ Law.

What kind of person would see a post saying that for a feminist in 2018 so much of what you encounter is both “are you fucking kidding”-worthy and depressingly unsurprising, and think that some outrageous and unsubstantiated misogyny will definitely be the suitable counterpoint to that view? Does he not see that he’s the one that looks bad in that scenario?


Favorite part; “Beto is hotter than you!”

Amusingly enough, my mom’s Trumpanzee neighbor is voting for Beto precisely because of this reason. Not necessarily a legitimate reason, but meh, we’ll take it.

I mean he kinda admitted to sexually battering women at his workplace. Also strong boundaries at work has nothing to do with identity. My manager when I worked at wal-mart liked to do ‘football’ butt slaps. They’re not funny or cute.

Maybe he’s aiming to be Trump’s next nominee for the Supreme Court? That’s the only reason I can think of why someone would post something that stupid.


Does he not see that he’s the one that looks bad in that scenario?

Self-reflection tends not to be a characteristic of this sort of person.


“Non-political” is right-wing, because it (at least tacitly) supports the status quo.

IKR? By that logic, he shouldn’t leave the house without his jockstrap. Otherwise he’s “asking for” a kick in the nuts from random strangers.

Complete and utter BS.

Huh. It’s weird – I heard someone make that same argument on Sunday. I was at an art show and this woman said something like, “We should criticize Kavanaugh for his politics, not because he groped some girl at a high school party. It’s so puritanical,” and then she was saying stuff about the left getting as bad as the right with “identity politics.”

Friend of a friend, not someone I know well – I wasn’t going to jump into the conversation to argue – but the issue is consent! It wasn’t about tsk-ing at teenagers for sexy fun times! “Puritanical” has nothing to do with it. “Identity politics” even less.

So I don’t know why she’d say that. She’s not a right-winger. Probably it’s true that people are more likely to censure the behaviour of their political opponents than their political allies. That much is consistent with human nature. But the rest is nonsense. The right’s “identity politics” = mainly racism, far as I can tell, while the things they call the “identity politics” of the left are about respecting people and their bodily autonomy, things that are only fair.

Rant over 🙂

Well, I didn’t put the stupid little bastard on the floor.

I was about 20, and I had nice big boobs (still do, but they no longer draw the creeps), and I was working in a little mom and pop German restaurant with really good food. One time a frequent customer, a known friend of the owner, patted my butt as I walked by. I hit him on the head with the tray I was carrying. Hard enough for him to say, “Ow.”

I went to the owner and told him what happened, and he said, “Good for you.”

Why yes, I do remember that with glee. Why do you ask?

Friend of a friend, not someone I know well – I wasn’t going to jump into the conversation to argue – but the issue is consent! It wasn’t about tsk-ing at teenagers for sexy fun times! “Puritanical” has nothing to do with it. “Identity politics” even less.

Does anyone remember, sometime in recent years, one or another political figures talking about how the left’s problem is that they’re obsessed with consent, that they’re under the ridiculous misapprehension an action is good or bad depending on whether or not its participants consented to it?

I can’t remember who said it, but I often recall it as so well representing the conservative worldview. They think it’s right and fitting that a young man should be making sexual conquests, so they don’t care whether or not the women involved consented. Conversely, a young woman should be remaining chaste and pure, so they still don’t care about whether or not she consented.


Yah, I remember that soundbite. Mighta been Rush. Sounds about like him. Yes, the left is obsessed with consent. It is the essence of agency and self-determination, ie, personal freedom. You’d think the supposed conservatives would be all over that. But of course, such conservatives aren’t really interested in freedom as a concept, just freedom from consequences for the right sort of people (wink, wink). ‘Cause they’re really interested in control while calling it freedom. Damn, total newspeak.

My favorite response to this is saying that they have a very punchable face and they really ought to cover it, otherwise they’re just asking to be hit. Of course it’s pointless to say that, because it won’t lead to any form of self-analysis. The thightness of the pants is just an excuse.

Regarding the misuse of the term identity politics (I was just talking about something similar with my father), I think people choose a political or sociological term, completely ignore its definition(s), and use it to classsify things as “good” or “bad”. If they don’t like the idea of something they can just say it’s “identity politcs”, or “feminism”, or “cultural marxism”, or “postmodernism” or whatever to allude to this thing’s supposed badness.
Idk if people actively work to deconstruct these terms, or if it’s like that whispering telephone game, though.

@epitome of incomprehensibility

The thing is, I could sort of buy the “It was back when he was a teenager” argument (well, not buy it, but understand why people might make it) if Kavanaugh admitted he’d done something inappropriate when he was young, but has become all better since, as evidenced by all the good things he’s done for women since (i.e., all the ones he keeps yammering on about). Or if, while still denying it, he openly stated that even drunk teenagers shouldn’t grope women, let alone try to undress them. And that you shouldn’t wave your dick in people’s faces. Or in some other way acknowledged that the things he insists didn’t happen are bad things.

I mean, I don’t think it would make him a good candidate for the Supreme Court. And it wouldn’t excuse the “Make sure any women who are going to be working in my office are hot” thing. But it would make the “he was a teen” argument slightly more understandable.

Let me ask this Dan Tucker
Why the fuck are you grabbing butts?
Like grab your own ass where no one can see you if you want booty you little pervert
Also my grandmother slapped the hell out of her boss in the 50s for pulling that shit so the giggling thing is not accurate at all


Also my grandmother slapped the hell out of her boss in the 50s for pulling that shit so the giggling thing is not accurate at all

That’s not the way it went down in Dan Tucker’s imagination. Please don’t harsh this poor guy’s buzz. Hasn’t he suffered enough!

but the issue is consent! It wasn’t about tsk-ing at teenagers for sexy fun times!

Yeah, like said above, right-wingers aren’t concerned about consent. For them, there is “proper” sex- i.e. Intercourse between a heterosexual married cisgender couple for the purposes of procreation, and there is “degenerate” sex- i.e. Non-cishet sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex, (non-marital) rape, bestiality, pedophilia, and anything else that isn’t “proper” sex. It’s why they equate gay marriage with people marrying their dogs and why they assume non-cishet people are automatically pedophiles, because to them all forms of degenerate sex are equivalent, and if someone engages in one, they’re likely to engage in the rest. (Especially if they will never ever have “proper” sex and thus be rendered “normal”. “Proper” sex or the potential to have “proper” sex is considered to be evidence of contrition/redemption for prior “degenerate” sex acts, and therefore cishet people, particularly male white cishet people, are given a much larger pass for “degeneracy” than anyone else. How convenient that aligns directly with the axis of privilege, right?)

It’s why the right-wingers think that leftists are being hypocritical and “going too far” when we persecute rapists/molestors but support gay people and trans people and poly people and casual consensual sex.

@Catalpa – True! As for the person I mentioned yesterday, she probably doesn’t have this Christian conservative viewpoint, given her use of “puritanical”… but maybe it’s an ill-informed reaction against it? Same result, though, lumping in bad behaviour with sexual freedom.

I’m also suspicious of her use of “identity politics” as it can be a dogwhistle for anti-trans views. Maybe I’m reading too much into things. But many liberals or (supposed) feminists are anti-trans. And she seems to be a libertarian sort of centrist person, not that I can tell from just one conversation. I’m probably thinking too much about this. I don’t want to judge people for just their politics, but I think everyone has a responsibility to try to be as fair to others as possible.

(Thinks: Is that too much to ask? …Apparently.)

@Rabid Rabbit – Definitely. I’m not up to the moment on U.S. politics, but I don’t see him doing anything to give people a better view of him.

This creep is of the same caliber as the creepy weirdo reviewing some awful film on Amazon who said that “a rape scene can be extremely erotic.” I hope I don’t meet either of them. If I do, their trouser marbles will be likely to meet my knee, should either of them try to touch me.

Well, times have changed and women will no longer stay silent. For generations women have been forced into staying silent or brainwashed into beleiving that a man, has the right to touch a woman because he is a man!! So, to Tucker, we are taking our bodily autonomy back and calling out the sleazy men for their inappropriate behavior.

Calling this identity politics is far from the truth. It is a take back the years, months, weeks, days and nights movement.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.