Just a thought on Eric Heyl's peice

As most of you know by now, Eric Heyl published a vaguely anti-gun article that served as nothing more than a despicable attack against women.  He also happens to be flat wrong.  I see plenty of women shooters at the range

Now, Imagine he'd written that piece but instead of writing about women attending an NRA convention he'd written it about blacks attending an NAACP conference.  The latter would have likely received national attention, the ire of Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton, and more than likely would have gotten him fired.

So, my question is this.  Why is it acceptable to be bigoted against a particular civil rights organization as well as blatantly misogynistic but unacceptable to say something that might be perceived by someone, somewhere, as racist, no matter how true it is?  I can't imagine Heyl's editors letting his screed through if it attacked blacks, latinos or gays, yet apparently the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has no problem with misogyny.

Also, what happened to the man that he hates women so damn much?  Women can be a huge pain in the ass sometimes, but I love them anyway.*   I mean hell, without women who would cook & clean for us, or fetch us cold beers on demand eh Mr. Heyl?

*especially the ones with big butts :P

H/T to Breda